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
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Larry Elder :: Townhall.com Columnist
Lessons in Holiday Dining With Liberals
by Larry Elder
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Just before the holidays, I had my annual dinner with longtime friends -- all political liberals.

My friends' son, now in college, asked me a health care question as I munched on a delicious dish of short ribs. "If you're against government health care insurance, what should poor people do? What, just screw 'em?"

Having known him since birth, I was taken aback by not just the question. I knew that, like Custer, I sat surrounded by liberals. But the harshness of the question surprised me.

Because Republicans, like me, reject the John Kerry-esque argument that "health care is a right not a privilege," liberals believe we see a bipolar world -- those with the money have health care, and to hell with those who don't.

So I said, "This is a somewhat complicated question, but the short answer is free enterprise."

"Free enterprise?"

"The reason health care isn't accessible to so many people is because of government interference. For example, a medic in Iraq who attends to fallen soldiers -- but is not an M.D. -- could not return stateside and open a practice. My aunt worked for over 30 years in a maternity ward. She told me that many times the new interns would say, 'Nurse Maggie, what drug should I use, and what kind of dosage?' Yet laws would prevent my aunt from opening up a pharmacy."

"Do you think something like this will happen?"

"It already is," I replied. "Several pharmacies like Walgreens now open up many clinics and provide cheap health care for low-income people."

At this point, his father jumped in and said, "Really? I never heard of that."

"You never heard," I said, "that drug stores like Walgreens now have in-house, walk-in medical clinics so that people can get care for medical problems, the kind of treatment that most people need -- noncomplicated, nonsurgical procedures?"

"No, I never heard of that."

And so it went. But for the record, big drug store chains like CVS, Rite Aid and Walgreens, along with the largest U.S. retailer, Wal-Mart, are expanding walk-in clinics in their stores. Hundreds will be opened this year, and thousands over the next decade. Staffed by nurse practitioners who can examine patients, administer vaccines, and prescribe medications for minor illnesses, these clinics charge much less than a traditional doctor's office visit. Besides increasing access to health care and reducing costs, such clinics reduce the burden on overflowing, ridiculously expensive, we-have-to-treat-you-even-if-you-can't-pay hospital emergency rooms. Available, convenient, affordable walk-in care also catches some illnesses before they become serious and costly. And doctors will have more time available for complex cases.

Despite a growing and aging population, no new for-profit medical school has been constructed in the United States since the early 1900s. In 1980, the Department of Health and Human Services survey predicted a huge surplus of doctors by 2000. State governments stopped building new medical schools, and almost all 126 medical colleges cut back enrollment, and medical graduates declined. The American Medical Association just reported an increase in first-year medical school enrollees for 2006 -- the first increase in decades . The U.S. still has only 126 M.D.-granting medical schools, but some experts predict we need at least 90 more to meet the doctor shortage predicted for 2020.

How many people also don't know that laws prohibit interstate health insurance sales, preventing people in state A from getting medical insurance from a company in state B? According to The Wall Street Journal in 2005, "eHealthInsurance compared the cost of a standard family insurance policy ($2,000 deductible with a 20 percent co-insurance) across that nation. (A) non-employer-based family policy for four in Kansas City, Missouri, costs about $170 per month, while similar coverage in Boston tops more than $750 a month." Why? Most states mandate the type of services that must be covered -- podiatrists, acupuncturists, massage therapists, etc. -- whether the patient wants it included or not.

Some states force insurers to sell to all applicants at the same price, regardless of their age or health. The result? "Faced with higher premiums for insurance they seldom use, the young and healthy drop their coverage, leaving an insurance pool of older, sicker people -- and even higher premiums. After a decade of such political meddling, the average monthly cost of a family policy in New Jersey bests the monthly lease of a Ferrari."

"Finally," I said to my friends' son, "people with little money still manage to afford cars. And people with little money can, if government set the market free, afford health care coverage. It won't be the type a resident in Beverly Hills gets, but there would be some bare-bones type of coverage if only government got out of the way.

"Now," I said, "can I have another glass of orange juice?"

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Larry Elder is a syndicated radio talk show host and best-selling author. His latest book, "What's Race Got to Do with It?" is available now.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Larry Elder's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
The real objective
is for people with illnesses requiring immediate attention to wait 6 months for "their turn", with hopes that they will die before "their turn" arrives. It is a movement to keep the nation free from ill people and to ensure that the younger people will inherit more money from their parents as their parents dying at a young age vs. living longer will be spending less of the money they saved.

digger writes
Anti-socialist you have a sick mind.
People from Canada come to the U.S. for health care because they cannot get it at home.
An English gentleman told us how lucky he was to be able to take his sick child to a private Dr. and pay for it because she would have died on the waiting list.
No socialized medicine. It would be a terrible tragedy.

Anti Socialist
if you come to live in Canada you will find that the underlying reasoning behind socialist medicine is exactly that: that people will die on the waiting list and then the politicians can praise themselves for *decreasing wait times*. That is why there are so many clinics and cancer centres and neonatal hospitals just across the border that cater only to Canadians.

The other underlying premise of socialist medicine that forbids private insurance is the sick and evil belief that it is all right if my child dies on a waiting list, as long as a Rich Child dies five minutes before mine; that is, it is not about lifting up the poor, but about beating down the Rich. And the Rich is anybody who has five cents that somebody else believes rightfully belongs to him.

The sad thing about the people who tout universal socialist medicine is that they assume it will be the top line medical care that Hollywood gets, and not the Grady Memorial Hospital emergency room. They ought to move up here and find out for themselves.

Socialised Healthcare?
No thanks. I live in the UK and the NHS specialises in killing people with hospital acquired infections, denying, delaying and rationing healthcare to people with cancer, who are obese, who are old, who don't live in Scotland and who are unlucky enough to need the ER (survival rate of serious trauma patients in US ERs - 84%, in UK ERs - 54%). For this substandard service I pay $670 (£330) per month in hypothecated taxes. For my private medical care (I don't use the NHS at all as I care about my health) I pay $1,900 (£900) per year and get treated by world class doctors on Harley Street. Socilaised medicine is just another way for rich liberals to hold back the poor.

asking the right question
That college student asked Mr. Elder: ""If you're against government health care insurance, what should poor people do? What, just screw 'em?"

The student had a point, but he didn't phrase it precisely enough to prevent Elder from sliding off the hook. How about this rephrasing:

"If you're against government health care insurance, what should a poor person with a *catastrophic serious illness* do? For example, what about a poor woman, unemployed and without health insurance, who was just diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer? She's not going to be treated for breast cancer at her local Walgreens, right?"

Because while we also rely on our health insurance for more routine types of illnesses, the MAIN reason anyone has insurance--any type of insurance--is to guard against the small risk of a big catastrophe. For example, Fred Thompson was diagnosed with lymphoma. The drugs to treat lymphoma cost around $100,000 for a full course. If you're not Fred Thompson, but you're some blue-collar worker who got laid off and lost his health insurance, where do you go to get $100,000 worth of medical treatment?

SteveL, you missed the point
IF the basic care items were handled via clinics, inexpensive nationally-marketed and market-based insurance, and the rest of the free-market solutions Larry discussed, then insurance for the very kind of catastrophic care you describe would be available CHEAPER because (a) it wouldn't be bundled into all of the much-used things insurance was never originally supposed to be about and (b) it would be priced based on the actuarial chance of actually NEEDING it, which is LOW as a pct. of the population and, in the case of cancer and heart disease--its two main needs--going DOWN as we live, eat, and improve as a population in general. In other words, if government got OUT OF THE WAY that very catastrophic insurance you talk about would be CHEAP. Would it make stupid or careless people suddenly responsible enough to get it? Nope. But if you want to pick up the tab as a taxpayer, then deal with THAT in isolation as an issue of morality/conscience/whatever if you like, but don't HIDE it in the overall cost of healthcare.

Oh, and one more thing--fix the tort system so doctors don't overprescribe, overtest, and overcharge due to their malpractice premiums which are almost entirely a result of non-medical LEGAL costs created to enrich trial lawyers---you know, those guys like John Edwards who want "universal" health care paid for by anyone but themselves?

Monkeyfish, I'm really curious:
What does living in Scotland have to do with it? I understand (and agree with) the rest of your statement, but as a US citizen living in California, the "Scotland" comment confuses me. Please explain?

ALSO...please note, at least you have the OPTION of purchasing your medical care on Harley St. at whatever cost. In the nationalized medicine systems in place in Canada and elsewhere and proposed by HIllary & Co. now and back when, it would be ILLEGAL to go outside the national system or for any doctor or pratitioner to accept payment outside of it. They not only want to wreck the system, they want to MONOPOLIZE the wreck, just as liberals do for every other sphere of society they claim to support "progressive" ideas in.

Shame on you Mr. Elder!
Shame on you for trying to mislead young people like that.

The fact is Republicans do believe that if you can't afford health insurance, too bad so sad.

Those little minute clinics are fine for minor infections and ailments, but they don't handle problems like diagnosing diabetes or hyper tension or heart disease. They don't amount to good long term health care.

And this idea that, if only the government would get out of the way, health could would be affordable for all is naive at best. The fact is health insurers make money by collecting as much in premiums as they possibly can, while denying as much service as they possibly can. It doesn't take an economics genius to figure out that people with high blood pressure and cholesterol levels and history of health problems in the family are not going to get covered, or, if they do, it would be unaffordable. the insurers will cherry pick their customers, and then they'll still try to screw them.

And the Republican response to this is, oh well, I got mine, so too bad for you poor fella.

When are Republicans going to realize that the free market works well for many things in life, but not everything? It doesn't work well for things like education, health, police and fire departments, building roads and a few others.

I don't care if you think universal health care is a bad idea, but don't lie to yourselves (and your children). Just have the guts to admit that you really don't care if poor people can't get proper comprehensive health care.

Phylo out.

SteveL
You should re-read Victory's response to you (many times over, apparently). It's a good primer on insurance, and how insurance coverages are "costed" over any particular class of insureds.

Were socialized medicine good
our Denver "Donkeys" owner Pat Bowlen would remain in Canada for his health care vs. flying south across the border to get immediate "top-class" medical attention.

stevel
just posing a question to you. if health care is a right to you, then free legal representation in the courts is a right to me. i think all lawyers should represent 75% of their clients for free and must get the same results or be sanctioned. every one knows there's no justice in america because we can't pay the ridiculous fees that lawyers charge. and i'm serious about this....now if health care and legal fees are free some one will now come along and ask for free product that stevel sells because it's a right so stevel goes bankrupt. so now stevel says the gov should pay stevel for his lost wages. so now the gov pays for everything but has no money so it takes all the wages and wealth from everyone and now no one has anything... and that great idea of gov america had is just a memory... but we now have a strong man running the country cuz we need order in the streets. this will take time of course, but it's were people with your political philosophy want to take this country. well you could save time and just move to russia.

dear phylo
i'm a republican and i don't have health insurance. it's because i can't afford the monthly premium. so i guess your theory about republicans have their's so the heck with the rest is "squatouche". maybe "you" should "have to" sent me 400 dollars every month to help me pay for health insurance.

truthseeker
You're right, not every Republican is rich. That doesn't change the fact that Republicans generally don't care if poor, sick people can't afford health insurance. I sure wish you'd wake up to how people like Larry Elder are trying to snow you.

Phylo out.

Affordability
Having read the accusations by the 'social-fascist', I must point out that back in the 50s & 60s, health care was good and much more affordable than today as back then, "medical organizations" didn't have a major problem with extortionism.

Today the most destructive extortionists in American (lawyers) seek to extort billions of dollars from "health care providers" when, regardless of how good/applicable the treatment was, the patient's body just wouldn't respond - that it was their time to die, regardless of what was done to prevent the death (human aren't androids).

If members of the organiztion that the 'social-fascist' supports do get elected to leadership this fall, "socialized medicine" will be implemented and, rather than finding whether or not our bodies will respond to immdeidate treatments, we will be denied treatment "for 6 months after the health issue has been discovered" with the hopes that "socialized medicine" will save huge sums of money as most people suffering from illness will die during the long wait for treatment (vs retaining life for a few more years). And, to repeat, they will die before spending the money they saved and in many cases (as now in MI with the Canadian pig in office), it will be taken over by the social-fascists vs being inherited by the living relatives of the deceased person.

phylo
People who make flat out blanket statements such as, "The fact is Republicans do believe that if you can't afford health insurance, too bad so sad." are either stupid, lying or haters--sometimes all three.

Independent Thinker
Sorry pal, it's a fact. It might be an uncomfortable fact for you to admit to yourself, but it's a fact. If I'm wrong, and you really do want poor and sick people to have affordable health insurance, tell me how Republicans are going to accomplish that.



PHYLO
RE-READ Larry's article. Carefully. With an open mind.

Phylo
"That doesn't change the fact that Republicans generally don't care if poor, sick people can't afford health insurance."

Normally I don't respond to your bullsh*t because you're a proven a**clown.

1. A national study came out that proved that conservatives give more than liberals.

2. I'd be willing to lay down a cashiers check for 1G to prove that I give more to charity than you ever thought of. From DAV, to Blind Vets, to the USO, to USO CARE packages, to our church, Toys for Tots, and the Salvation Army, we give a lot.

3. And we volunteer locally for food drives, etc.

As far as health care goes, you'd been told this time and time again but prove that liberals are super-glued on stupid.

ER's and County Hospitals are FREE to those who cannot pay. It's Federal LAW. Unfortunately, they're clogged up with illegals.

BTW, which party wants to give illegals drivers licenses? Which party opposes and fights AGAINST
sending the illegals back?

In favor of Socialized Medicine
Economics is the"Dismal Science" because there will always be more needs and wants than resources. Health care is no different than any other service in that respect, though it is different in other respects.

But the fact is that health care has to be rationed by some means.Cost is one of those means. Another means is the well documented policy of insurance companies to deny care to some individuals because of the cost to the company.

The "free market solution" to health care essentially masks the basic problem in platitudes about "personal responsibility."

Health care is different in that people often don't have a choice in whether or not they get ill. Hence, the recognition that "social insurance" is the correct moral choice for a post industrial democracy.

ok phylo
lets talk about all the things liberals don't care if i have. how about for starters the money i worked hard for. most of the poor people you talk about don't work at all and are covered by medicare or some other form of it. and they can go to the dr or hospital free of charge. but seeing as i have a house to take, i can't say the same

and phylo, in reply
to your post of9:55 tell me what democrats are doing for the poor innocent little children, just wanting to be born.....and just as a side note, evangelical christians give far, far more to people in need than liberals whose solution is to take involuntarily from the people who pay taxes(only half of america) and give it to someone who didn't earn it but is deemed worthy to receive it by a liberal gov union thug bureaucrat.

phylo
Like more liberals, you probably have an open mind, so open in fact, that your brain fell out.

Here are a few links. Research is everything.

http://digg.com/politics/Conservatives_charitably_donate_30 _more_than_liberals_as_a_whole

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

truthseeker
Good point. What's the count on murdered infants since the liberals enacted Roe V Wade?

My how they'll wage war on infants but quail against fighting terrorists.

First: NO WHERE, in any document...

not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, etc., did our Founding Fathers even allude to this country being a socialistic country!

In fact, they took great pains to make sure the government did NOT have that kind of control over our lives that socialized health care would provide.

I don't know how MANY, MANY horror
stories some people have to hear about SOCLIALIZED health care before they get it!!!

SOCIALIZED health care doesn't work! People die needlessly. And if these people don't get it that those who CAN have their own private health insurance, and/or travel to... guess where... the United States of America, to get the health care that they can't' get at home.


Come on Phylo out and SteveL, use your brains and figure this out....






Phylo out: "Those little minute clinics

are fine for minor infections and ailments...."

And, that's exactly what they are intended for.

In fact, in VA they have what they call, "Urgent Care Clinics" that are not associated with any pharmacy, but independent clinics that are intended to care for people who would otherwise go to the ER for non-emergency problems.

Most are open 24/7. They will take insurance IF you have it, and otherwise, the cost is minimal, or in some cases (as I understand it) free.

They are not supposed to "handle problems like diagnosing diabetes or hyper tension or heart disease."


What is so obvious is that those who somehow desperately want a nanny state and socialized health care, won't consider that there are a myriad of things that can easily be done to "fix" health care issues in this country; NONE of which require socialized health care.

How about this? Those who want socialized health care move to Canada or England, and after a year or two, come back and tell us how things went.









gunny, anne, truthseeker
happy turkey day. Now I read the pc crazy libs want this holiday turned into a day of mourning for those native americans who have climbed oon the I am a victim bandwagon. But to the discussion. The libs always P8ss and moan about problems but never solve anything. They controlled congress for 40 plus years prior to the repubs taking over during the 90's. Never once did they address either health care or social security. Now it's become an issue and like always they want to blame the heartless repubs. They have control of congress right now and what are they doing about either crisis that they are shedding crocodile tears over. But they have no problem with the murtha types continuing to loot the treasury. And they assured us they were going to act responsibly and get meaningful legislation passsed. Btw when does the draining of the swamp they claim is in washington dc going to start drying up

Anne
Sure, there are some disaffected citizens and horror stories from socialized medicine, but the majority of people in countries with socialized medicine really like it. I've known some. I saw William Buckley jeered by Canadiens over health care when he took his show up there.

Why, oh why, Anne do conservatives love to ignore and deny such inconvenient truths as the majority of people with socialized medicine support it?

As for Canadiens who come to the United States for health care they are really choosing a different system of rationing the allocation of scarce resources.Scarce resources still have to be rationed.

Proud Liberal
I read just about 10 days ago an article on the BBC wherein a whopping majority of Brits are yanking their own teeth because the dental care sucks.

Also, the "flesh-eating" staph germs are rampant due to dirty surgery instr and unclear hands.

BTW, I spent 21.6 years on active duty for Tricare Prime. Me and mine are taken care of for 500.00 a year.

I surmise that if people can't AFFORD to have afamily, then they DON'T, just like AMericans USED to.

I think they call it "personal responsibility."

BTW, once they get rid of the illegals, the ER's and Co Hosp will be open. Or do you LIKE having your tax dollars pay for NON US citizens?

proud lib
i don't know where you get you info at but my info is different. plus, as for me i want the gov out of health care. the only thing they get right is the military, no thanks to libs who would emasculate it and give the money to illegal immigrants.

wildwest
BAM!

You ever notice how ANY plan hatched by the libturds uses the word "mandatory" in it?

If I hatch a plan that rocks, wouldn't people flock to it? "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door!"

Instead, the libs foist a Ponzi scam on US, write themselves OUT, until Reagan fixed that, and make it MANDATORY!

in fact, a better plan exists, the Galveston Plan, in place since 1983 but the libs and the RINOs ignore it.

wildwest
happy thanksgiving to you too and merry christmas. Jesus is the reason for the season

A necessary blend
As a strong social conservative, and someone who agrees for the most part with economic conservatives (ie limited government and market freedom), I still am concerned that a totally free market cannot solve all the problems with regards to health care.

For the last couple of years I have been researching why health care costs have been rising so fast compared to other goods. The best answer I have found so far is that at a certain level of wealth people will begin to value their health over other more physical stuff. For instance, if you can already afford a new Chevy, but you could afford a Mercerdes, you might chose to buy the Chevy if you also need an extra medical procedure. In other words, as income overall raises, the percentage of income that we spend on healthcare will rise because our health becomes more valuable in our eyes once all the basic necessities are met.

If this is the case then the primary driver of the rise in health care cost is that fact that we are demanding more and better health care. Certain test become standard that were once a luxury. Now everyone wants a CAT scan or an MRI if they might help. Thus it is increased demand that is driving the increased cost.

Now here is the problem with a totally free market solution that even Elders acknowledges: in a totally free market solution people in different economic groups will get very different levels of health care. Yes, you say, so what that is the way the market works. But if you get enough blue collar workers who see their wives dying because of lack of health care (which by the way happened to a friend of mine whose wife did not get treated for her cancer in time because of lack of insurance) then you will have a revolt.

You see health care is a basic right when it means a difference, not just in standard of living, but in length of life. Life is a right, and if there is a measurable difference based availability of health care then it is in just.

wildwest
Enjoy your turkey and football.

Drink a brew for me as well!

Heading to work.

Change the subject
I've noticed that every response to my original post is basically an attempt to change the subject. (Well, either that or an ad hominum attack.) Conservatives give more to charity. (Only if you include giving to churches). Everybody gets free health care. (It's not free. You get a bill for the services. It also only deals with emergencies. What about long term and preventive care?) Liberals want to tax me. (SO do Republicans, just for different reasons like getting into unnecessary wars of aggression) It's not in the constitution. (Lots of things aren't in the constitution.)

But I've noticed that nobody is willing to actually say, yes, I support policies that insure that tens of millions of people will not be able to afford comprehensive healthcare. You can't say it can you? You can't say it because you know how heartless and greedy it is, but you don't want to admit it, so you change the subject.

Phylo out.

sam allen
your all washed up. health care is never a right. if it was then you have dibs on a doctors intellectual property (his knowledge to cure people).... and i would say a far, far greater reason for health care increases are trail lawyers with fake science law suits driving up insurance costs stratospherically and also gov regulation. the only thing gov should do is prosecute criminal activity.

phylo the stupid
we don't say it cuz it's not true. i don't care if people get health. it's just not my responsibility to pay for it, fool. get you facts right. oh, thats right, your not acquainted with the facts and would never let that get in your way of a good story.

Hmmm...
Your article conflicts with the information at AMA who said there is a GLUT of doctors and they don't know what to do with them because there are laws in place preventing them from practicing. I also denounce the fact that you made owning a car by a poor person sound like a luxury....when obviously you have never had to try and get around without one. Local businesses rape and plunder the poor without transportion and places like 7/11's prices are 2 or 3 times higher in a poor neighborhood than on a busy thoroughfare. And our Walgreens and others ( I don't know about Wal-Mart as I never enter the devil's temple anymore, and so would not have access to one there anyway) do NOT have clinics in them. And have heard of no plans for them. You need to go live out on the street for awhile. Good thing you're not running for an office in my district.....

truthseeker;
Actually Americans DO HAVE the RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AND IF ONE CANNOT BE AFFORDED ONE WILL BE APPOINTED ....You obviously haven't done your homework. What arrogance. I can see you're no Christian.

Proud Liberal: Wrong again....

The majority of people in Canada and England are NOT happy with their health care system...

I happen to relatives in both Canada and England... and according to them, the consensus is the health care rots!


And, again, we are NOT, and never have been intended to be a socialist country...

If that's what you want... move to one.





Phylo Se Fiser Rants Without Focus
Phylo Se Fiser rants, "Conservatives give more to charity. (Only if you include giving to churches). Everybody gets free health care. (It's not free. You get a bill for the services. It also only deals with emergencies. What about long term and preventive care?) Liberals want to tax me. (SO do Republicans, just for different reasons like getting into unnecessary wars of aggression) It's not in the constitution. (Lots of things aren't in the constitution.)"

Try to stay focused on one topic at a time. Rants read like temper tantrums. Does that usually work for you?

As to charities, is a Church not a traditional charity vehicle?

As to medical services, there is a considerable volume of people that never get a bill. I have a very poor cousine that refuses handouts that just got an apendectomy and was surprised to find out that such services are free to poor people like her --- no bill. Common practice.

As to taxes for war, does not the Constitution explicitly state, "..provide for the common defense.." as its mission? I know of no war that has not been commissioned by the full Congress and the American people.

As to what's in the Constitution and what is not, the guideline is the mission statement provided by the preamble:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

Phylo Se Fiser Is Out Of Focus
Phylo Se Fiser says, "But I've noticed that nobody is willing to actually say, yes, I support policies that insure that tens of millions of people will not be able to afford comprehensive healthcare."

So, what's the problem?

AND THE BEAT GOES ON

.....The Government creates a problem ...labels it a crisis ...then rushes in to solve the problem it created in the first place by creating more Government ...and the beat goes on as people become slaves dependent on the government that is enslaving them and asking for more of the same .....COLOSSUS

zena poor thing
so is it now my fault that someone's poor. the problem with people like you is that your allowed to vote without having a lick of common sense. and i'm more of a christian then you any day of the week.....now to refute the most stupid foolish argument of the day. public defenders are for criminal prosecution only, and would you want to put your freedom on the line with a pd. i wouldn't. now, try suing someone with a public defender. can't do it huh. will a public defender make you a will. how about a contract. and if you want a good lawyer it cost $800 an hour. you got that kind of money fool. and if you can rub two fifty dollar bills together you can't get a public defender, so you have to pay for your own defense. and if your sued civilly you can't get a public defender. not that their worth five cents. their paid by the state whether the win or not so do they care about you. hahaha sure they do.

Anne
OK, let's say you've got 50 relatives in Canada and England. No, let's say 150. So, we've got a 150 that don't like socialism medical care. But, Anne, I'm going to need more than the word of your relatives.

My memory says that people in Canada and England and in the Scandinavian countries had many many years to vote against socialism and did not do so, in fact returned socialism year after year. In recent years, I believe, athere has been some introduction of market incentives, but as far as I know most populations are not calling for a total market based health care system. Quoting your relatives is not a balanced perspective, Anne.

And the United States is a Welfare State because that's what the majority of Americans want.

Proud Liberal: 98% of the entire

population of both Canada and England could tell you they're not happy about their health care, and I'm bettin' you'd STILL come up with a reason why that wasn't good enough....



Truthseeker
My information is impressionistic and also some articles I remember. Some 30 years ago I was on a tour which included a number of young English citizens. We had two upperclass young ladies and they were scornful of the English medical system. But the rest of the tour, young people to be sure, were quite enthusiastic about their health care system. Plus one of my wife's relatives, an American who moved to Canada and has lived there for 20-30 years also was highly positive about the Canadian health care system.
He is an older gentleman. But it occurs to me that the question to ask is "which people like socialized medicine and which do not?" This is probably a more reasonable perspective than trying to drum up impressionistic anecdotes to substantiate that everyone either loves or hates socialized medicine.

You're also familiar, I suppose, with the stories of Americans living in France or England who are very laudatory about socialized medicine.

Incidently, I saw where someone pointed out that Americans were going to India for health care because America's care was so poor, but the stories I've seen has to do with money. They got the care they needed in India for much less money, said that the nursing care was better, etc.

Thank you!
What a great article! I didn't know any of this. However I did try to buy a pair of glasses from a store where I had delivered an old person and found out that that store could only sell to people on medicare and not to the public because of government regulations. The price of buying a pair of glasses has gone up so much especially since optometry stores don't want to sell you just one pair but rig the prices so that one buys two pair, and pays for it.


Sam Allen Fears Choices
Sam Allen offers, "... at a certain level of wealth people will begin to value their health over other more physical stuff. For instance, if you can already afford a new Chevy, but you could afford a Mercerdes, you might chose to buy the Chevy if you also need an extra medical procedure."

So, how is that different from everything else? Are you proposing that if it exists, we should all have it?

We are constantly balancing our wants versus our needs. Putting monetary values on things tends to put everything into perspective. Cars, shelter, food, clothing..and so on, can all be had for very little expense, yet people will choose to spend a fortune on any one of them.

Even the poor buy into "wants" over "needs". But, it is their money and a free country, so they get to spend it as they wish.

Proud Liberal Extols Free Enterprise!
Proud Liberal offers, "They got the care they needed in India for much less money, said that the nursing care was better, etc."

Welcome to free enterprise! Excellent point.

India and other asian countries have found an entreprenueral niche. If you want an operation that is too risky, too expensive or not approved by your country or health care, you can go over there, for a price.

You can bet that the patients from France, Canada or England do not get reimbursed from their countries for it, either.

So, how does this help poor people to get health care?

well proud liberal
your info is such and mine is different. don't know what to tell you except if you want socialized medicine go for it. i should also be allowed to opt out and get private care. than in ten years lets talk. i also would bet all the doctors are in private care. the only way your system is feasible is to force every one into your system. but as long as i don't have to pay for your health care i'm ok with you doing what you want.

Lilly's new handle(s)
Proud Liberal. I thought she was Viruddh.

Canada could be a great free market
experience. Let's say that Canada switched to a totally free market health care system overnight. Then Canadiens could get to choose how much they want to spend on health care. Let's assume a private insurance market.

Canadiens with existing cancer could opt for the high priced plan which would pay for their cancer, if they could find a plan to take them. Same with people with heart disease.

Healthy Young people might choose not to have any insurance.

It could be very instructive to see how this plays out.

don't you see
that because you have an illness it's not my duty to help you pay for it unless i want to. maybe that could be a tax deduction, but it's not my fault your sick but you want me to subsidize your medical treatment. well ok, you subsidize my business because i have a right to an income

truthseeker: It's a lost cause....

A true liberal... and I'm loath to use the word 'thinker' ....

What I find so very amazing is that it's the same people...liberals... who have no problem with the government knowing all there is to know about their most personal and private information, their health, and making decisions about their health care...


YET............

These same people go ballistic with the mere mention of a voter's registration card or a national ID card.

And, as many times as I've asked for some explanation... I don't seem to get anyone to address it. Huh!


Somehow the logic escapes me. Or, maybe it's because there IS NO logic in that thought process.



Go figure!




anne
you are so right. the left is hypocritical and sees no problem in being so. the ends justify the means to them...bah!...anyway, i like you tho. lol

anne, truthseeker
on a happier note I see the munchkins from the wizard of oz were given their own star on hollywood blvd. Fortunately there were still a few able to attend the presentation. My favorites were the three from the lollypop guild

Proud Liberal
If Canada's socialist medicine is "so great", why does Denver Donkey's Canadian owner - Pat Bowlen - constantly fly to the USA for medical treatments?

anne
as a liberal i don't have an opinion either way right now on national id card.

there is something about the real id act i don't feel comfortable about(i don't trust this administration with privacy matters)

although,i can see the need for some sort of confirming unforgeable id in the future.

the folks against a national id are diverse and represent both left and right. here is a partial list.

the American Civil Liberties Union, American Conservative Union, American Library Association, Gun Owners of America, Republican Liberty Caucus, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Free Congress Foundation, and approximately 40 other organizations.


religiouslib
do you think i would trust a klinton administration with any information. and that includes ultra-secret defense dept secrets. i'd expect them to give it to the chinese for campaign donations

SteveL didn't
read a word that Elder wrote; as usual Steve was using this article to bash someone (Fred thompson) who is running against the radical liberal Giuliani. And not surprising not only is Giuliani for socialized medicine, he goes even beyond most liberal Democrats in that he want taxpayer funded socialized medicine to pay for abortions on demand.

As for medical
schools and nursing schools, just increasing the number of such schools won't help. Frankly, those professions, like engineering and information technology, require a dedication, a 'nerdiness', a devotion to real academic mastery in a manner that most American high school or college students are simply incapable of in this generation. First fix the way high schools teach, reform the divorce culture so both parents are there to help kids in school..and then talk about something else.

Liberals want Control, not Solutions
Invariably, Liberals demand that others hand them more and more power whenever a crisis develops, but rarely do they use that power to implement effective solutions. Instead, they misuse what they have to promote their personal or political agenda.

Health care is simply another example. Rather then attacking the fundamental causes of rising health care costs, such as Gingrich is trying to do with his American Solutions initiative, Liberals demand that we cede to them all decisions regarding our health and wellness. They will pick the doctors, they will determine who gets treated and when, and they will decide when someone else (not them of course) is no longer worth "treating" and is ready to die.

Liberals nearly destroyed the African-American family in the 60s and 70s with their Great Society. I see absolutely no reason to let them do the same with what is, arguably, the best health care system in the world.

ZENA
Your information is way outdated. The AMA is currently predicting a SHORTAGE of doctors.
Just google ama doctor glut or shortage.

Not with liberals
I've pledged never to eat with liberals -- they always try to steal the food off my plate. Le'Chaim.

Free Ramos and Compean
Global warming is sphere nonsense

Truthseeker
I know you didn't ask for any subsidization but I'd bet you are and have been subsidized all your life - depending upon how wide or narrow you define subsidization.

You also didn't ask to be born and to be born into 20th century society. Had you been born at other times and places you wouldn't have been subsidized. So, what are you going to do about the fact that you've been born into the society you've been born into?

If you're like me you're the beneficiary of the infrastructure of your town or city, paid for collectively by taxes; youre education was subsidized by taxes that built the school buildings and educated teachers; your work force for your business has been subsidized by public education - and are you willing to pay for the education of a work force out of your own pocket?

Health care? You didn't create the Welfare State but what are you going to do besides whine that you've been born into a society which displeases you? Do you know that the greatest aids to health, well being and longevity are the result of public health measures and not medical?

Give me a break!

proud liberal
don't agree with anything you said. the education system in this country is broken. the nea union thugs have co opted it to be about benefiting the teacher unions not the kids who are starting to be dumber than a box of rocks. thx liberals, for nothing....do you know that the proper role of gov is to build bridges and protect the country. nowhere does it authorize welfare to non citizens or health care to citizens. it's an invented right by liberal activist judges and democrat legislators. and i'm trying to keep the country great by stopping whiners like you from changing it into a welfare state for the whole world. and other than bridges and the like i have not gotten anything for free from the gov.

A different angle
To all who want socialized healthcare, I have 2 questions for you-

1) Do you really want gov't even BIGGER than it already is?

2) How's the post office working for you? How about the DMV? How about our campain/election process? How about the IRS? How about social security? FEMA? All gov't agencies and most libs would say they all are sub par. Well why on earth would you want another gov't-run institution then?!?!?

It behooves me that no body on the left seems to think of these issues for socialized medicine!

Rights
I believe there is a name for a system in which one person has the right to take the fruits of another's labor for his own benefit. The name for that system is slavery.

It makes no difference whether the fruits of another's labor is used for a good purpose. It matters only that it is a matter of right that those fruits are taken.

Why is health care as a right any different than food as a right or shelter as a right?...when those rights depend on demanding from others at the point of a gun?

Unfortunately in this land of the free, More and more people are demanding that we become each other's slaves.

Truthseeker
But you're still whining about the way things are and saying they should be different. But things aren't different. The world doesn't conform itself to your tastes.

Proposal
I have a proposal for addressing the health insurance needs of the poor. The technology exists to allow each voter to vote for or against a government health insurance program. Those who vote for it will get a bill with their federal taxes the next year to fund it. Each year that bill will reflect the needs of the program for the coming year. This way those concerned with insuring the poor through the Federal government can do so and those who don't want to will not. I call it the VIP program - for VOTER IS PAYER. We could do this for Education, Agriculture and many other programs that are extra-constitutional. The they could honestly crow about being compassionate!

Proud Liberal -- on How Things Are
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
-- George Bernard Shaw

Don -- on Rights
"Why is health care as a right any different than food as a right or shelter as a right?"

That's next.

I Am On Socialized Medicine (Medicare)
I had a blood test at a non-profit hospital last
week that was billed to Medicare for $510. The Medicare approved payment was $173. So the Gov in effect set the price and I have a co-pay of no more than 115% over the gov set price.

But here's the kicker. I pay $90 a month for Medicare part "B". Its not free.

I do not agree that its free.

Liberials are so smart
The state where I live several years ago decided it was just a great idea to tell the medical insurance companies that they must offer coverage to everyone regardless. Good liberial thinking. So all the companies but one pulled out of the state. My health insurance for 2 people is now almost $900.00 a month. Over 3 times what is was just 4 years agao. Health insurance is available to everyone if you can afford it. There are answers 1. Tort reform 2. U.S. Citizen health I.D. Cards, stop the (free) care for those here illegally 3. Health care stations that handle less serious issues and prevent costly major sickness 4. Rewards for healthly life style and not making it a living going to the doctor and hospital. We still have the best HEALTH CARE in the world, just far too many pills, trips to the doctor, minor issues in the emergency rooms, and people thinking we should live forever.

I'm with Paul's proposal
Hey, bring it on...a VOLUNTARY socialized medicine system? Here's the thing...VERY FEW people would vote for it, if they knew their money was going to pay for the FREE health care for the poor.

But just proposing the idea just MIGHT have liberals thinking about it...MAYBE

Mom in Wisconsin

proud lib the whiner
i guess i realize now that you just another stupid lib, not worth talking to. you have no idea how the real world works, you want it your way or no way...well i'm not giving it to you, turd for brains

Equal opportunity or outcomes? 1
To my fellow conservatives,

I have often read hear the idea that in America as a free and capitalist country, we should strive to have a level or equal playing field that guarantees equal opportunity, but that equal results should not be guaranteed, as that is communism.

I am wondering what category health care falls into? Is it like the buying a house or car, or is it more like buying national defense. Now I am not at all convinced that an exclusively government run health care system would be good for America, because I believe that advancements are driven by personal initiative that needs to be rewarded.

On the other hand, if you have a significant difference in availability and quality of health care, then you will eventually have a very significant difference in life expectancy for people in different social classes. If you want social stability so that your economic system can still run well, then you cannot have the life expectancy of the white collar worker far exceed the life expectancy of the blue collar workers.

Most of my friends are blue collar conservatives, but if they are unable to get their families at least close to the same kind of health care, they will clamor for change. If it is true as I contended above that demand for more and better services is the main cause of the rising cost of health care, then for the sake of social stability I believe the upper income classes are going to have to somewhat subsidize better health care for all if they want the system to stay stable.


Equal opportunites or outcomes? 2
If you want revolt, then all you would have to do is set up a totally capitalistic health care system where the kids from wealthy people get to live and the the kids from poorer people die from the same disease. Right now the system does subsidize health care for some, and thus we do not have revolt.

The current system can certainly stand some reform (ie tort reform, allowing better insurance options), but to provide equal opportunity at the benefits of America, some form of heath care net for the poor needs to be available. If you are dead you don't have any opportunities.

Truthseeker
I'm sorry that I disappointed you and you had to label me a stupid lib not worth talking to. Was it because I called you a whiner? In an earlier post you said, "I'm trying to keep the country great by stopping whiners like you...." I suppose I was just retaliating in kind.

I don't hold it against you or other conservatives for trying to undo our Welfare State if that is your belief about what is best. You have freedom and a choice. But, at the same time conservatives disallow other people the freedom and choice to advocate and establish a Welfare State. Where does it say that freedom, choice and liberty don't include the choice to choose government? Conservatives, in the end, don't believe in freedom, choice and liberty. You believe in allowing people to make choices of which you approve and nothing else.

Unca Alby
Would you say that the "reasonable men" are the ones who comported themselves to our Constitution and that the "unreasonable men," those who are responsible for any advances we've had, were the ones who resisted making our Constitution the ultimate authoritarian document of our country?

Prod Liberal
Whoa there! "Advocate for and establish a welfare state"? Did you actually write that? Please tell me it was a mind fart, please. Listen up: if I advocate against a welfare state I am arguing that people should be allowed to keep their money and donate to charity as they see fit. If you argue for one, not only are you championing stealing my money at gunpoint but ignoring the crucial fact that you libs just have to donate more, a lot more, of your own money and we don't need a welfare state. In effect, you are advocating that I give my money to others while you are not willing to do so. Why don't you see this?

sam allen
We have a multi-tier system now. High-priced doctors take a lot of time with their patients and really get to know them and their issues. Low-budget doctors have to rush from room to room and give you 5 to 10 mins to spit it out and write an Rx. When insurance pays only 50-70% of the docs' fee and your copay of $20 doesn't make up the difference, it is the only way they get compensated for their expertise, education and skill. Don't forget that they were essentially without an income from 18-30 and, in fact, probably incurred enormous student loan debt. The break even point for a doc versus a plumber, from high school on, is somewhere in the mid-to-late forties (where the doc has acquired the same wealth). Now, after that, the doc takes off, but how do you lure exceptional people with the promise that "if you work your @rse off for the next 25+ years and give up most of your youth, delay your family and have almost no control over your life, you will eventually make more money than a plumber"? This is why the best and brightest are going to Wall Street instead of Harvard Med.

Proud Liberal --I mean Lilly
You are correct: conservative oppose your "freedom to establish a welfare state".
There's nothing in any of the founder's documents that hints that was their intention.
There are welfare states already established however, that you could go and experience firsthand.
If you had any experience with the welfare population in this country, you would not want it for anyone. Welfare is the second worst travesty ever foisted on a people (slavery being the first).
You sit and read all your propaganda behind your protected condo gate, you've had a very protected existence, that's obvious. You just have no clue! That's a generous way of looking at you, btw. Otherwise I would have to say you're just plain evil for wanting people to be enslaved.

CVN65
You're ignoring my point. Do conservatives believe in freedom of choice for everyone or do conservatives restrict freedom to choices of which they approve?

Will you deny me making the choice to steal your money through taxes? If that's the case you don't even believe in representative government let alone democracy, let alone freedom, liberty and choice. You believe in having only what you want to have.

Proud Liberal -- "Progess"
"Would you say that the 'reasonable men' are the ones who comported themselves to our Constitution and that the 'unreasonable men,' those who are responsible for any advances we've had, were the ones who resisted making our Constitution the ultimate authoritarian document of our country?"

I was referring specifically to your statement to Truthseeker about his whining about the "way things are and saying they should be different."

All of us want something better than the status-quo. "Whining" about wanting change is nothing to be ashamed of.

Proud Liberal
"Will you deny me making the choice to steal your money through taxes?"

So you admit that you advocate theft by any means necessary, including the use of law?

sam allen - Health Care vs Natl Defense
"I am wondering what category health care falls into? Is it like the buying a house or car, or is it more like buying national defense."

Under what *possible* rationale can you put it into the same category as national defense?

You must understand the fundamental nature of government. It is, pure and simply, legalized use of lethal force. It is the only thing we need government for, it is the only thing it does even moderately well.

Health care is like food, clothing, shelter, etc. It must be left to each individual to decide what is best for his/her own individual circumstances.



"if you have a significant difference in availability and quality of health care, then you will eventually have a very significant difference in life expectancy for people in different social classes."

Such is going to be true no matter what you do.

Even with a completely 100% totally socialized national health care system -- the wealthy will go elsewhere to pay for free market health care, and thus be healthier. Like Canadians coming to the US, those of means will find a way.

That's one of the myths of Socialism, that it's actually *possible* to create 100% equal results. *Somebody* is going to go "black market" to get superior results for the right price.

However, also recognize that a free market system generally makes better services available for everyone for less. Free Competition improves everything. So the "poor" or the "blue collar worker" or whatever *will* have affordable health care.

But we have to get government *out* of the system first.

Proud Liberal -- Freedom vs. Democracy
"Will you deny me making the choice to steal your money through taxes? If that's the case you don't even believe in representative government let alone democracy, let alone freedom, liberty and choice. You believe in having only what you want to have."

We, the People of these United States, got together and made an agreement. That agreement defines and limits what powers belong to the Federal Government. It also defines a small set of rights for the People, including a "catch-all" that anything not enumerated in the agreement otherwise belongs to the Several States or to the People.

That agreement is called the Constitution.

You have the choice to have your representatives in government steal all the tax dollars they want, so long as it's for something specifically enumerated in that agreement.

Any time you want the government to do something that is NOT so enumerated, no big deal. Just change the agreement.

So hey, you want the Federal Government to be responsible for the People's health? You want the Federal Government to clothe the naked, house the homeless, and feed the hungry? NO BIGGIE!! Just write the amendment that authorizes these powers and get it passed.

On a long trip home
I was reading some TH comments to my Republican
husband:

--is for people with illnesses requiring immediate attention to wait 6 months for "their turn", with hopes that they will die before "their turn" arrives. It is a movement to keep the nation free from ill people and to ensure that the younger people will inherit more money from their parents as their parents dying at a young age vs. living longer will be spending less of the money they save.

--Socilaised medicine is just another way for rich liberals to hold back the poor.

--98% of the entire population of both Canada and England could tell you they're not happy about their health care, and I'm bettin' you'd STILL come up with a reason why that wasn't good enough....

plus many more from this and a couple of other
TH sites. My husband said: why do you read this
crap? I said - to get my feeling of superiority
fix.




Unca Alby
Ditto your last comment. I was going to write something similar.

The are some things that not even the majority can have an opinion on. Those things are called rights. You know, the right to a free press, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, to not have to testify against oneself, and to keep and bear arms.

Governments were created to protect those rights. Rights were not given by government.

Wow...
...Didn't your mother tell you that you're not supposed to talk politics, economics, or religion at the dinner table? Said topics generally don't turn out to be light hearted discussions that everyone can enjoy. I suggest you and your friends learn to discuss normal topics like Football or how college life is treating your son and his friend...

No nurse schools either
"...no new for-profit medical school has been constructed in the United States since the early 1900s."

The U of CA Irvine recently applied to open a new law school -- as though there weren't enough lawyers. Meanwhile, there is a crying need for nurses.
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.