Unhealthy Care
I love this.
As the Obama admin begins its full court press on national health care, key congressional Republicans are already lining up to oppose any so-called “public option.”
Makes no difference to them that the largest, most successful and I might say most popular health care programs in America — medicare and medicaid– are precisely public options.
The GOP scare campaign has also begun on the airwaves, warning Americans that it would be tragic if the government somehow came between them and their doctor. That is, of course, allowing for the 50 million Americans who presently do not have a doctor.
I love this because it so stinks of rank hypocrisy. What the Republicans are really worried about is that a so-called public option for medical coverage, some basic subsidized plan open to all, would undercut the monopoly now held by shameless bandits, er, I mean private health insurers. In other words, the dyed-in-the-wool free marketeers are afraid of serious competition that could undercut Big Pharma’s obscene profitability. Geez, we wouldn’t want that to happen, would we?
I gave up mind reading a long time ago but…my sense is that this is a moment in our collective history in which the American people actively desire intervention by the government to help them out. If you’re a couple making 50 grand a year and the $12,000 price tag for some half-arsed family health plan makes it unobtainable, somehow I don’t think you’re going to be offended if you can get a government plan for half that price.
Everything in me tells me that the Republicans are seriously misjudging the mood of the electorate. I hope so.
That said, it’s no surprise that when the rubber actually hits the road on the issue, the GOP puts the interests of private insurance companies above the welfare of millions of Americans.
It’s also no surprise that there’s already some waffling on this issue from what are politely but inaccurately called “centrist” Democrats who would be better described as Right-Wing Democrats.
National health care reform will be completely hollow and ultimately a hoax if there is no public option.
The Republicans are hardly my worry on this. They can be ignored. We have to worry that Obama will not buckle. And then we have to worry that if he doesn’t he can buck up the spineless creatures who inhabit the Democratic side of the aisle. That’s a lot to worry about.
P.S. I have been doing little blogging because:
A) I have been working hard.
B) I have been playing hard when I am not working (it’s summer).
C) I will soon re-launch a redesigned blog.
—————————-
Please subscribe to my Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/marc_cooper
Watch my regular Video Blogs by subscribing at http://www.youtube.com/McooperTube
June 8th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Thanks for the new post Marc.
Share your review of the health care situation almost 100%
Here’s a little to add to the call for a “public option”:
Medical Bills Prompt More Than 60% of U.S. Bankruptcies
http://news.health.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-bankruptcies/
For pete’s sakes, it’s bad enough when Americans have to endure all that illness and sickness stuff out there. Then on top of all that, the fooking system puts us in the poor house!
Looking forward to the re-launch.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I love how the current conservative talking point has been, more or less: the public plan is going to be terrible like DMV running health care and also it will “interfere with doctors and patients”. But it will only “interfere” if the patient is enrolled in the public plan — if its really as bad as the Republicans are saying, well, nobody would choose government-run health insurance, right?
And also, is anyone else sickened by the rank hypocrisy of the Republican Party bitching about interfering with doctors and patients? Isn’t one of the GOP’s tenements about restricting certain medical procedures because the moral police know better than patients and medical professionals? Yes, it is.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
It’s funny how Republicans never worry about a “publicly run” military.
Maybe we should frame the issue as it being unpatriotic to Support Our Doctors?
June 9th, 2009 at 7:10 am
LYT, our government is charged with providing a common defense. However, the “publicly run” military does depend considerably upon private industry and contractors. As good as our military is, it’s still not efficient, as is all of government. Anyway, Obama is gutting it along with our missile defense plan.
On the other hand, there is no “right” to health care that the government is charged to guarantee. It’s pure pandering and vote buying with other people’s money.
As you well know, our doctors don’t need to be supported by the government, and they, like most, would prefer less government and more freedom.
I know that my health care will get worse under goverment control and rationing than with what I have now. I’m calling my doctor this morning and guess when he’ll see me –today. Under the government rationing plan, it could be weeks or months.
If Marc is right about medicare and medicaid being so great, then what’s the rush for government take-over of the health care industry? The elderly and poor are covered. But, the fact is those programs are expensive to the taxpayers and their supposed low fees are passed on as higher fees to private payers.
But, there isn’t anything that a facist or socialist considers outside control of goverment as long as it gives the rulers power. Legislative proposals that would allow individual and private control and choices over health care are always shot down by the Democrats.
Regarding results and something as a measure for future perforamance in the health industry, Obama is doing a heck of a job with the economy now, with unemployment creeping up near 10% despite the stimulus that had to be rushed through and that they said would stop unemployment at 8% – and then lying about jobs ‘saved and created,” essentially nationalizing GM for the unions, slashing Chrysler marketing and shutting down hundreds of profitable Chrysler dealers (how will you sell more cars without advertising and with fewer dealers?), controlling banks and Democrats forcing financial reports to play games with their numbers to make the banks seem better, and interest rates going up because of government borrowing, which will be paid back after they force inflation higher so that they can pay back real dollars with ones worth less.
And, to think that I used to believe that there could be a worse President than Jimmy Carter.
June 9th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Correction to last sentence “couldn’t”
June 9th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Canada’s ObamaCare Precedent – Governments always ration care by making you wait. That can be deadly.
- – -
Obamanomics: How Stupid Do They Think We Are?
June 9th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Marc, I hope you are right about the mood of the electorate. Still, don’t forget Thomas Frank and the lessons of “Kansas.” http://tcfrank.com/books/whats-the-matter-with-kansas-2/
June 9th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Off topic, but mentioned because it’s one thing that you wouldn’t otherwise learn here and from most national media: Republicans Seize Control of New York State Senate
June 9th, 2009 at 8:38 am
By allying themselves with an indicted felon who is accused of slashing his girlfriend in the face with a glass and, much, no doubt to your consternation, a strong supporter of a hands-off policy on illegal aliens.
This is the same Hiram Monserrate who the Republicans said should resign afetr he was charged with slashing his girlfriend’s face.
If he isn’t convicted he’ll be voted out of office and the NYS GOP won’t wecome him.
June 9th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Randy: a strong supporter of a hands-off policy on illegal aliens – Pick yours up at The Supply Depot
June 9th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I agree that the biggest obstacle will be Obama and all of the Democrats holding to firm positions regarding keeping the public financed option available to health consumers. Quite frankly, Obama (although I still support him) has disappointed me on a number of fronts.
My question is, and maybe someone could answer this for me – If Republicans fail in eliminating the public option provision from the final bill, do you think that they will fillibuster this to prevent it from becoming law? Or could this bill pass with 51 votes?
June 9th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I guess like all bills threatened with filibuster, it could pass with 51 votes if they can get enough additional votes to neutralize the filibuster. I think this is a big enough deal – and Obama is steering it personally according the Sunday Times – that “moderate” Dems and maybe even a couple of GOPers might be embarrassed into at least not supporting a filibuster, even if they vote against the bill.
Max Baucus – who was “firm” for a public option just a couple of weeks ago – seems to be the key senator who is waffling. I think he’s the weathervane on this issue and the guy to watch.
One thing that could help with this is that the Obama grassroots are being systematically mobilized. It will be interesting to see how that plays out because this is the biggie…and grassroots activism could well have an impact in states where pols are on the fence. Also, the lack of credibility of the GOP and “centrists” on this strengthens Obama’s hand if he takes the issue directly to the people. The counter-arguments are all at about the same level of sophistication as Woody’s drivel posted above. There is NO good argument for anything less than a comprehensive reform that includes a public option. None… (The guy Woody quotes above is a Canadian shrink and professional rightwing ideologue who was busted last year for using bogus data when Giuliani started quoting him on prostate cancer in the US vs. the UK. His supposed “source” rejected his attempt to spin the data. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good article up comparing health care costs and outcomes, including “rationing” in the US vs. Canada.)
Here’s a long clip from that Wikipedia article, which is strikes me as very balanced:
In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Robert S. Bell, M.D., President and CEO of University Health Network, Toronto, said that Michael Moore’s film Sicko “exaggerated the performance of the Canadian health system — there is no doubt that too many patients still stay in our emergency departments waiting for admission to scarce hospital beds.” However, “Canadians spend about 55% of what Americans spend on health care and have longer life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rates. Many Americans have access to quality health care. All Canadians have access to similar care at a considerably lower cost.”
There is “no question” that the lower cost has come at the cost of “restriction of supply with sub-optimal access to services,” said Bell. A new approach is targeting waiting times, which are reported on public websites.[51][52][53]
Price of health care
Health care is one of the most expensive items of both nations’ budgets. In the United States, the various levels of government spend more per capita on health care than levels of government do in Canada. In 2004, Canada government-spending was $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government-spending $2,724.[11]
However, U.S. government-spending covers less than half of all health care costs. Private spending for health care is also far greater in the U.S. than in Canada. In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the U.S., this sum is $3,372.[11] In 2006, health care consumed 15.3% of U.S. annual GDP. In Canada, only 10% of GDP was spent on health care.[5] This difference is a relatively recent development. In 1971 the nations were much closer, with Canada spending 7.1% of GDP on health while the U.S. spent 7.6%…
The mixed system in the United States has become more similar to the Canadian system. In recent decades, managed care has become prevalent in the United States, with some 90% of privately insured Americans belonging to plans with some form of managed care.[57] In managed care, insurance companies control patients’ health care to reduce costs, for instance by demanding a second opinion prior to some expensive treatments or by denying coverage for treatments not considered worth their cost.
Administrative costs for health care are also higher in the United States than in Canada.[58]
(end clip)
So yes, there are some longer waits in Canada as the country is spending far less per capita and as a % of GDP. But the truth is that by any rational standard the Canadian system is far more effective, has far more bang for the buck and covers everyone. And the evidence on outcomes actually supports the Canadian system as the superior system despite “rationing” and about half the cost.
Wiki: “In 2007, Gordon H. Guyatt et al. conducted a meta-analysis, or systematic review, of all studies that compared health outcomes for similar conditions in Canada and the U.S., in Open Medicine, an open-access peer-reviewed Canadian medical journal. They concluded, “Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent.” Guyatt identified 38 studies addressing conditions including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies with the strongest statistical validity, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 were equivalent or mixed. Of 28 weaker studies, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 were equivalent or mixed. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada with a 5% advantage, but the results were weak and varied. The only consistent pattern was that Canadian patients fared better in kidney failure.[7]”
The biggest flaw in the Canadian system IMHO, as opposed to the French, is that some WATB like Woody can’t buy additional private premium insurance so we don’t have to listen to them whining if we’re unfortunate enough to sit next to them in a waiting room and it took them a while to get their treatment scheduled.
Of course a single payer plan isn’t on the table, but “public option” gets us closer…
June 9th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
You might also want to check out this Frontline doc SICK AROUND THE WORLD which compares systems around the globe, and what we can learn from them. A Canadian- or British-style system is hardly the only option.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
Click “Watch the Full Program Online” to do just that.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Sorry, reg. You’re over my word count limit.
BTW, I called the doctor today under my private plan and guess what…he said come right on in. I’m glad that we didn’t have to run that by a government bureaucrat first.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Nobody cares…
June 9th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Once again, when was there a vote to make you spokesman, reg? In reality, you say that you don’t care because you never have won an argument with me.
It is on point that I made a doctor’s appointment and got in immediately, compared to the inconvenience and physical discomfort associated with Obama’s rationed care that makes people wait. Also, I choose not to be in backed up in government waiting rooms – especially with the smelly riff-raff, if you know what I mean.
I also prefer for my tax money to not be used to provide “free” abortions on demand to girls at all and especially without parental knowledge.
I also don’t care for medical records to be maintained by the government. If Obama’s klutzs can’t keep classified information about the locations of US civilian nuclear sites away from the terrorists and since the Democrats are famous for leaking confidential tax information about its enemies, then I don’t trust them with any confidential data about people’s lives and medical care.
But, I know you don’t care, because there’s no rational response that you can offer.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Troll Boy’s desperate…
June 10th, 2009 at 4:34 am
reg issues another short concession speech.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:34 am
Very pleasant to see the President move towards the position held by Hillary on health care last year.
Unfortunately, the so-called “blue dog” dems, that is, dems who get elected to Congress by the white working class, have come out against a public plan. I have a hunch these members ARE listening to the views of their constituents. It is a shame that so many white Americans have allowed themselves to become so shortsighted and misinformed on the question of socialized health care. I would point out to people like Woody that while there are significant complaints about Canada’s system, and moves to introduce some market-based reforms, there is NO serious support for scrapping the basic overall system, even in the most conservative provinces out west. Wonder why?
Given the cautious hope that I’m allowing myself to feel about Obama’s health care initiative and diplomacy push in the Middle East, I’m almost ready to admit there is something positive about the increasing diversity of the American electorate besides the expanded range of ethnic restaurants.
June 10th, 2009 at 7:06 am
“It is a shame that so many white Americans have allowed themselves to become so shortsighted and misinformed on the question of socialized health care.”
Good point, WC, and I agree. But I think that is changing, particularly as the reality sets in that with our current system, fewer employers are willing/able to foot the bill:
http://www.slate.com/id/2220137/
When I talk with older folks, including my parents and their neighbors, their biggest concern is affordability and access, not “choice”. It’s ridiculous to call something a “choice” if all available options end up unaffordable to the majority of Americans. That is the problem that must be fixed.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Woody, you’ve lost every argument you ever engaged in on this site. You do make a good point about the Military though. Rather than efficient, of course, the Military is bloated, corrupt and the most blatant rip off Americans have and continue to face. The privatization we saw in the Iraqi rip-off was just a slight step up from years of no bid contracts, the revolving door at the Pentagon , billions spent on PR, etc. But you seem to suggest perhaps we take the final step and privatize the Military also?
These two most recent posts really show what a two faced
(all the way to the bank) commenter Marc Cooper is. By any fair
tally Hillary Clinton open the doors on health care reform, while
Coop and Hitchens went to the bar to trade dirty gossip for the next issue.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Actually I think it’s fair to say that Bill Clinton opened the doors on that conversation, and Hillary–whether through ineptitude, inexperience, or just being out-maneuvered–effectively slammed that door shut for 15 years.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Here’s what a “concession speech” sounds like, Troll Boy:
“Sorry, reg. You’re over my word count limit.”
June 10th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Thanks for the awesome info. and answer to the fillibustering question, Reg. I would guess though, that of all the Republican Senators, the only one I would count on as possibly saying “no” to a Republican fillibuster would be Olympia Snowe of Maine (she faces re-election in the state of Maine in 2012 where health care is becoming a big issue).
Personally, I have worried that Obama will accept a bill to sign on his that did not have the public option available.
If striking that option from the bill does happen, I would hope that progressive Senators like Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders would join with right leaning Senators to try and kill any bill. No bill is better than repeating the Medicare debacle of a few years ago.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
After Reg’s informative post I now feel more confident that Obama will do the right thing. It sounds like he may not back down.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I’m “hopeful” but I think “pragmatist” Obama will sign any comprehensive bill he can get, even if the public option gets killed or inserted as a weak “back-up” triggered by some set of conditions that private insurers fail to meet (that’s the most likely “weak tea” version that will make most liberals feel good and give Blue Dogs and a couple of “moderate” GOPers some cover – but it’s bullshit because it’s going to be written so that it will never be enforced.) Still, I’m pretty confident Obama will use his persuasive powers on both the Senate and the public to promote the public option.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
what bullshit.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Cogent stuff, punk.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:52 am
reg. “over my word count limit” expresses boredom with your rambling rather than any concession to easily defeatable socilalist propaganda.
reg: “pragmatist” Obama
One of the funnier descriptions of an unqualified, big-government, dogmatic President….
June 11th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Why are liberals so in love with big, expensive, inefficient, and highly political central government solutions to problems?
I agree health care is a problem that needs a solution. But god almighty, the single-payer worshipers are either dumb(no), uninformed(no), or so committed to ‘equality’ they refuse to see(yes). We already have years of experience with liberal’s idea of single-payer health care ‘equality’ for those over 65, as well as Social Security.
In the first example, those over 65 get practically free and very expensive(they seem to go hand-in-hand) regardless of your ability to pay for it yourself. You can be very wealthy, or at least sitting on multi-millions of assets, and you get practically the same ‘equal’ benefit from the ‘central-payer’ as if you were dirt poor. It is not only self-destructing the actual needy’s need for healthcare, but our nations financial security via foreign debt as well. The central-payer politics have made Medicare a third-rail untouchable monster for our selfish and self-serving DC career politicians.
Regarding the second example, ditto for another untouchable third-railer and highly political central-payer project. Our self-serving career politicians have borrowed Social Security’s cash reserves to bankruptcy, rather than risk loss of their jobs by raising the taxes necessary to pay for programs they found politically advantageous for reelection over the years.
And you guys want another bankrupting out-of-control untouchable central-payer political project? How about demanding our dear leaders to show some political will to fix just these two disasters before taking on another, to begin with. In the mean time, no one is denied needed healthcare if they cannot pay. It is existing law, but obviously a very expensive one as it is.
President Obama has the support of the House and Senate. He is popular and in a unique political position as a liberal to show some leadership in reform of these third-rail social program failures. He can recognize the political problems in controlling their spending in the future and make significant and important needs-testing changes, while learning from them in constructing a massive expansion of Medicare/Medicaid.
Universal healthcare is needed, but must be financially sustainable with affordability. This means means-testing, including not just income but net-worth, and what amount of gov’t help one needs to supplement a legal requirement to have a health insurance policy….just like we are required to have for our driving liabilities, in a FREE MARKET COMPETITION for insurance policies. In addition, any gov’t(people) subsidized programs must have stiff enforcement, including fines and jail sentences, for fraud.
Means-testing, subsidized not free, and fraud enforcement are the three basic cost control things absolutely necessary for universal central-payer social programs, past and future. I challenge you President Obama to use your considerable popularity and political control to show real leadership. You are smart enough to see the fallacy of pure liberal idealism’s potential to bankrupt and threaten the actual worthy social programs they promote, and fix them now to pay for the next one they want. The solution is not more of the same.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:29 am
The biggest problem with health care is that people who can afford coverage choose, rather, to spend their money on alternatives like big screen tv’s, fancy cars, big houses, and drugs.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
From HuffPo:
Speaking at a town hall in Green Bay Wisconsin, President Barack Obama addressed head on what is the hot debate of the day: whether a health reform overhaul should include a public option for health insurance.
“I also strongly believe that one of the options in the exchange should be a public insurance option,” Obama declared, in what was one of his most forceful statements of support since the health care debate began. “And the reason is not because we want a government takeover of health care. I’ve already said, if you’ve got a private plan that works for you, that’s great. But we want some competition. If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and it will help keep their prices down.”
The remarks came just several hours after the American Medical Association said it would oppose a public option for coverage. But in a reflection of just how delicate this debate has become, the 250,000 member physician group largely backtracked from its opposition later in the day.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
“And the reason is not because we want a government takeover of health care. I’ve already said, if you’ve got a private plan that works for you, that’s great. But we want some competition. If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and it will help keep their prices down.”
President Obama, we are not stupid or children. Please don’t talk to us like we are. You are smart enough to know the government cannot compete fairly with private companies, and so do we. Private companies already have plenty of fair competition, and you know that too.
Your statement is a poor attempt to convince people you think are less intelligent than you that you are not promoting an eventual government take-over of health insurance. You are, as indicated by your lame statement you want private enterprise to have to compete with the federal government. It cannot and you damn well know it. So do these dumb asses you think you are talking too.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Your beginning to add substance to the ‘arrogant’ and ‘socialist’ labels some have tried to pin on you.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
No company is able to compete with socialism’s ability to bury their incompetent losses down the throats of their servants.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Jim R –
Wouldn’t you agree that markets ‘work’ when there are rational actors involved? If you do, then do you think the US system of private health insurance produces rational outcomes? What exactly does private health insurance produce beyond profits?
Could you think that it’s possible that private health insurance acts as an inflationary cost upon American businesses? HIndering such?
What is your definition of insurance?
June 12th, 2009 at 7:13 am
“President Obama, we are not stupid or children.”
Actually, Jim when guys like you and Woody attempt to discuss health care in America, you pretty much are. You don’t have a clue. The best health outcomes and most cost efficiency are found invariably in health care systems where the government guarantees universal insurance. There is universal agreement among people who aren’t simply free-market ideologues arguing at about the same level of competence as some member of the Communist Pary circa 1950 defending Soviet Industry, that France has the best health care system in the world, combining universal single payer with private insurance options for those who can afford premium care. This is fact, not opinion.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Please address my cost control points reg.
Can the self-interested politicians in Revenue Central be counted on to control costs of a new massive social program? Have they any history doing so? How has a gov’t run program ever done better than a profit making enterprise in cost and quality? Is a smart man like President Obama being disingenuous when he says he expects private enterprise to compete against the power and pockets of our federal government?
It would seem it is your ideology getting in the way of an intelligent and respectful response. Stop debating Woody. He’s rubbing off on you.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Bob….the respectful one.
Markets work when there is competition. Capitalism is rational only when there is competition, otherwise it is a greedy selfish monster.
In the process of seeking self-interest, profit, it has shown to be the most powerful and efficient at producing low cost quality products, and many jobs.
It is the governments job to encourage and assure there is competition, preventing and breaking up monopolies for example. It is NOT the governments job, because they are extremely bad at it, to BECOME the competition.
Hell, the reason we have the problems every one points to in capitalism, is because we cannot depend on the self-interested job keeping politicians to do a good job assuring competition and controlling the capitalist beast that feed them. Do you really believe we can depend on them to control the costs of a government run social program by removing ANY FREE services to an increasingly depend electorate?
Look at ANY social program, started as a legitimate need to solve a limited problem, say to serve free lunches to poor children as an example. They all EXPLODE over time to become a literal free-for-all who just want it, no questions ask about need, to an increasingly dependent electorate who have the attitude it is their RIGHT. It is FREE, so why not take THREE.
So here we are debating the evils of the extremes of both Capitalism and Socialism, when they are not controlled properly by the extremes of our government. It is a necessary and inevitable debate in order for the people to keep the extremes of each under control. We lurch between a too pro capitalist regime like Bush’s to, I hate to say but the evidence is piling up, a pro socialist Obama.
Let’s at least understand this debate between the haves have nots has been going on between people, tribes, states, and nations for all time. It is a debate that will continue for all time and is a necessary one. But let’s at least be willing to admit we have a long history of which system works best at providing the most to the most, and that is FREE enterprise government controlled capitalism, not run and managed enterprises. Let us not repeat the failures history has shown us, and FIX the best system in history in the best country that has ever existed.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:39 am
“..FREE enterprise government controlled capitalism, not run and managed enterprises.” would be “..FREE enterprise government controlled capitalism, not government run and managed enterprises.”
June 12th, 2009 at 11:11 am
“How has a gov’t run program ever done better than a profit making enterprise in cost and quality? ”
Medicare, for all of it’s inefficiencies, does better every day than private insurance companies. And the French and Canadian systems of universal insurance are FAR more efficient, FAR more cost effective and produce overall better outcomes than the US system. Any criticisms of those systems is anecdotal – and you really don’t want to go there because the anecdotal evidence against the US system is far more of an indictment than any hysteria about rationing or wait times you can drag out as a smokescreen for the hard evidence of these system’s equal or superior outcomes and far lower costs. Frankly, it’s insulting to even have to debate shit like this because it’s factual and based on hard evidence, not half-baked rhetoric and crank ideology such as you appear to be mired in.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Also the VA is the best health care system, bang for buck, in the US. Very efficient, cost effective and very high quality.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:19 am
“It would seem it is your ideology getting in the way of an intelligent and respectful response.”
Sorry JIm, but you’re the crank ideologue here – I’m not ideological at all on this issue. I believe in a public, universal insurance system and a competitive health care delivery system because that’s the type of system that’s proven itself best by all rational measures and evidence.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:25 am
reg, Obama’s system will be nothing like the one in France, so quit trotting that out as an example. Anyway, it’s true that the French cheat on their medical statistics.
- – -
Solar panels take priority over heart surgeries.
Canadian hospitals cutting services to pay carbon tax: “You have public hospitals cutting services to pay a tax that goes to another 100 per cent government-owned agency. That just doesn’t make sense.”
June 12th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Sorry Troll Boy…you’re not even worth debunking.
June 12th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Finally giveing up, huh…like so many times before?
reg, it takes a complete fool to say that government is more efficient than private systems. A major problem with private systems is the government.
One of my main points is that the French healthcare system has nothing to do with anything proposed by Obama and what we will actually get.
Socialized medicine is not the best cure for pushing back against the trial lawyers who support Democrats.
June 12th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Efficieny is not the only metric worth considering here, a point that I think conservatives of the more radical stripe consistently miss. There are things the market cannot provide. There are, further, things that it would be destabilizing for the market to provide–like national defense for example.
Imagine if private interests were allowed free reign over all development planning? How long until Central Park was a forest of high rises?
Health Care strikes me as one of those unique areas that isn’t completely well served by the market. We’re talking about health here, and so directly talking about the quality of people’s existences. The very things that constitute the ability to fully enjoy life, and pursue that happiness that our founders rated so highly.
Furthermore, there is a moral element here. I find it amusing that conservatives want to regulate so much of our lives around things like abortion and stem cell research, but are willing to let millions of people’s health depend on the vagaries of the marketplace because of some shibboleth about efficiency.
And then of course, there is just the grand hypocrisy of any conservative who receives a treatment that was developed on the public dime, which isn’t a problem as long as they have private insurance. Didn’t I hear something about foxholes that is vaguely applicable here.
Somethings should not be left entirely to the market. It’s a lesson we’ve learned again and again over hundreds of years. Health care is one of those things.
June 13th, 2009 at 6:11 am
“Finally giveing up, huh”
On you being worth more than a fart…
June 13th, 2009 at 11:13 am
I think Mr O IS as clever as we all want him to be…just when I was getting pissed off he was not paying his dues to Kennedy and getting the ehalth care issue in everybody’s face he does a great bait and switch on how to organically get rid of the evil,, corrupt insurance companies by simply offering the public a government run coverage that will compete with the greed heads and if done right eventually all but kill them.
Coulda had a V8!
Rather than make it a contentious battle of trying to restructure the entire system just come in with another player that doesnt have to answer to share holders but to the tax payer.
And I really don’t see why employers need to pay for health care…lets get that bull shit Repug talking point off the table. Our premiums should be deducted from our pay checks as they are done in England. I contributed about 80 Pounds Sterling a month — roughly $150 a month. Where I lived I had access to a home visit…a home visit IMAGINE! After hours clinic and Saturday clinic. I had world class surgery done for a basil cell on my face FOR FREE.
Stick tha up your ass Woody.
Its all a no brainer. The problem is no one in America has any brains.
Yes, this is Anna on another computer.
June 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
BlueScout: you obviously haven’t been reading the posts. In single-payer systems you wait in long lines for healthcare and eventually you die a horrible death – are you certain you’re still alive?
Obama is a run left-govern right corporate stooge who will never embrace single-payer in any meaningful way. The left needs to do a serious reality check on their Obamamania.
June 14th, 2009 at 10:22 am
“it takes a complete fool to say that government is more efficient than private systems”
Where “a complete fool” = “someone even slightly informed or rational”. Woody’s form of argumentation is common among profoundly stupid people, as when Glenn Beck says that only a complete fool could believe that his exhalations are pollutants, or Creationists say that only a complete fool could believe that unintelligent dead rocks can turn into intelligent living beings. These idiots are examples of what recent studies have shown, that uninformed dimwits tend to grossly overestimate their own intelligence and knowledge.
June 14th, 2009 at 10:30 am
It would seem it is your ideology getting in the way of an intelligent and respectful response.
Ha ha ho ho, that’s quite something coming from you.
June 14th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Jim R – I think you tried to respond to my questions above. Appreciate it. Sorry I could get back to you sooner as I am in deep, deep, mourning over the Red Wings losing the Stanley Cup to the Pens…
Dan O’s comments do overlap quite a bit what my rejoiner to you would have been…can’t think straight right now. Hope you can understand…
Shaved my beard and am still crying in my beer.