Feds won’t be able to handle health care

By Houstonjac: 7/18/09 at 4:56 a.m.; Suggest removal

Good letter!Let's take a closer look at health care in the U.S. It is extremely important that we not over react to the nature and extent of the health care issues in this country. With reasonable time and attention health care can be improved without nationalizing any part of it. It is in our interest to create legislation that will both extend the protection of coverage to every American and keep health care a privately based phenomenon.

At present 85% of all 300 million Americans have health care coverage. About 15% are not covered, and of those who are uncovered about 50% can afford coverage but choose not to obtain it. That means that about 23 million Americans require health care coverage who cannot afford it.

The Obama administration's health care plan calls for a public component and a massive outlay of 1-1.5 trillion dollars over the next ten years. To pay for this the Obama administration plans to raise taxes
on millions of small business owners who create badly needed jobs for the nation. In addition to raising taxes, the administration also plans significant cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, under which health care for the elderly and poor will suffer as the result of forced rationing of health care. These are not improvements,rather serious degradations in health care for millions of the elderly and the poor.

What is needed instead of these massive expenditures and taxes, and reductions in coverage for those on Medicare and Medicaid, is legislation to fix current problems in the medical care system that will require employers to carry minimum levels of insurance on their employees, eliminate pre existing condition restrictions, require portability of insurance coverage and allow for competition among insurers in different states. In addition, there must be minimum levels of insurance coverage mandated for those who are unable to purchase their own coverage.

By jldour: 7/18/09 at 5:26 a.m.; Suggest removal

I agree 100% that the federal government cannot run a business.
Why are they passing legsislation in the middle of the night?
Why do they continue to vote on bills before anyone has a chance to read and understand what they are voting on?
Why do they not address the problems that cause the cost of care to sky rocket?
Why do they not look at the courts that award large amounts of money that lead to doctors doing every test in the book in a effort to not be sued?
Why is their answer to everyting highter taxes?

The way the leaders of the country are running things, they are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2010.

By uddeboda: 7/18/09 at 7:23 a.m.; Suggest removal

Houston,
Its easy for you to say "At present 85% of all 300 million Americans have health care coverage. About 15% are not covered, and of those who are uncovered about 50% can afford coverage but choose not to obtain it."

Of these 245 million who have health care coverage, could you be more specific, like how many have this kind or that kind of coverage.

By JohnF: 7/18/09 at 7:56 a.m.; Suggest removal

Houstonjac,

You forget that, of those 250 million people with insurance, about 50 million are covered by Medicare (about 17% of the total population). Also, 13% of the population is covered by Medicaid and SCHIP, and another 4% are covered by military medical care.

About 35% of the total population is already covered by medical insurance through the government. In other words, of the 250 million people who have health care coverage, nearly 100 million of them have their health care coverage through the government.

What we need to do is to get over the notion that we are best served by having our health care system run by private entities whose best interests are served by limiting the amount of health care we receive.

By GordonShumway: 7/18/09 at 8:19 a.m.; Suggest removal

HEALTHCARE SHOULD NOT BE A "FOR PROFIT" INDUSTRY.
Let a public plan compete with the private plans. Small businesses are shedding health benefits at the rate of 12,000 people a day.

By uddeboda: 7/18/09 at 9:55 a.m.; Suggest removal

GordonShumway, Shushhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

The insurance companies might be listening

By DWOLLAM: 7/18/09 at 11:22 a.m.; Suggest removal

Bob Arlow -
"fallacious argument at best" is dead on. Greenspun does not so much describe; more like he implies that because the Center is part of University Texas system it must be government run. If one were to dig a little deeper they would find original funding, and much money since then, was not provided by the government. Boosters, donors, benefactors, etc., when donating millions of dollars, do have a great say in the direction and use of their funds. Can anyone say Greenspun College of Urban Affairs?

JohnF & Gordon -
If we do not have 'private entities' or 'for profit' health care, who will pay for the system to be in place? This leads to the basic premise of freedom choice; a foundation of this great country. If someone chooses to provide fantastic health care at no cost to the recipient(s), good for them (dare I say, God bless them?). But do not force me to pay for health care for those who choose not to purchase their own health care/insurance or live a healthy lifestyle.

By the way, did anyone notice Greenspun does not allow comments to his stories or opinions?

http://nevadapoliticsbydan.blogspot.com/...

By lazyfaire: 7/18/09 at 3:57 p.m.; Suggest removal

Gordon says: "HEALTHCARE SHOULD NOT BE A "FOR PROFIT" INDUSTRY."

If taking profits out of health care delivery will improve it, why stop there? Why not make all industries not-for-profit?

By JohnF: 7/18/09 at 4:43 p.m.; Suggest removal

DWOLLAM, Lazyfaire,

I'm not saying that the provision of health care should not be for profit. Let all the people who think they can provide health care to us at a reasonable cost and still make a profit do so.

What I will say is this: under normal circumstances the free market should be left to decide who gets what goods and services and in what quantities. When it comes to the goods and services that we require for life, however, we need to ensure that all people have access to them.

If we left the provision of medical insurance to the free market, the elderly would never be able to obtain it (except for the very wealthy), those covered by SCHIP and Medicaid would never have it, nor would the people who do not currently have health insurance. In other words, if we left the provision of health insurance to the free market with no governmental intervention, over 40% of the American population wouldn't have any.

DWOLLAM,

We don't have a choice when it comes to deciding from whom we purchase our water, our electricity, our natural gas, our sewer service, or our trash removal. The public is better served by having these necessities provided either by the government or by government-sanctioned monopolies.

But this is not what President Obama is proposing. He's proposing that people have the opportunity to opt in to a government-sponsored plan. That gives people more choices.

By getalife: 7/18/09 at 5:24 p.m.; Suggest removal

I cannot wait until the same group that regularly screws up such things as the US Mail and believes cost over-runs are just the way it is to tell me how to run my life and when I can see a Dr.

Tax them into the ground. That is the Democrat mantra

By DWOLLAM: 7/18/09 at 5:28 p.m.; Suggest removal

JohnF-
Please explain to me why it is my responsibility to ensure that you have adequate health care/coverage? If you choose to go rock climbing every weekend, drive a cab in southeast DC, or (God forbid) smoke cigarettes, why should I be responsible for your health care if you are unable to afford it? You chose the path of your life; why should I be responsible for the consequences of the path you have chosen? Please take the time to read my blog and you will find (with citations) that currently the approximate number of uninsured in our country is closer to 7 instead of 40+ million. This equates to approximately 2.3% of the population. Hardly an alarming number, unlike your 40%.

Additionally, we do have some choices with our utilities: dig a well, solar and/or geo-thermal energy, do not use natural gas, drive your trash to the landfill. Because our utility choices are in fact limited, the state and/or local government(s) put restriction on the rates they can charge. If you are unhappy with current rates or provider be sure to speak up at the rate increase meeting.

But please, answer my original question: why should I be responsible to ensure another person's health care?

http://nevadapoliticsbydan.blogspot.com/...

By GordonShumway: 7/18/09 at 8:24 p.m.; Suggest removal

Dwollam: my son does not go rock climbing every weekend, drive a cab in southeast DC, or smoke cigarettes. He has lost his job and of course his health insurance and the drug therapy which was keeping his MS in check. It will be a cold day in hell before he ever sees a private health insurance plan again. Why should he receive an early death sentence under this wonderful health care system?
If my wife loses her job my health care goes out the window also, and due to pre-existing conditions, my loss of health insurance is a death sentence. A bullet to the head would be the most realistic therapy for me in todays American health care system. Or maybe I could be saved by the Cobra farce where you pay $1,000 a month to continue your coverage when you have no income.
You pay lots of taxes to support a military complex to fight a senseless war and to develop weapons we no longer need, but you can't spare a dollar for your brother in a bind.
Non believer I presume?

By lazyfaire: 7/18/09 at 8:45 p.m.; Suggest removal

JohnF said: "When it comes to the goods and services that we require for life, however, we need to ensure that all people have access to them."

So we must provide everyone with food, shelter, clothing, and health care? Where do you draw the line?

There are not enough resources in our economy to treat, let alone pay for, every malady, ailment, injury, disease, self-inflicted wound, drug overdose, stroke, organ failure and everything else that occurs. Resources must be rationed according to priorities. The question is who sets the priorities: individuals paying for it or bureaucrats. Yes, insurance companies are like bureaucrats, but at least the profit motive provides some check on them. We can improve our health care system with free-market reforms, not by handing it over to the overnment. Your "government option" is a fig leaf for the ultimate goal: single-payer.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/18/09 at 9:21 p.m.; Suggest removal

Screw you and screw the free market lazyfaire. IT DOESN'T WORK. SO SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT IT!

By getalife: 7/18/09 at 9:52 p.m.; Suggest removal

Doug,

You need to throttle it down. I have read all of your posts ad nauseum. You are the ultimate broken record.

Obama's way is ludicrous! Where is the transparency?! The only thing He has done with Pelosi and Reid is show how stupid politicians are. They cram through legislation without even reading it.

You have too much blind faith in your Democratic buddies. They will screw you as well. You are just too blinded by the fanatical joy that your "team" has the numbers.

They have the numbers but not enough sense to help America. They are either too busy running for office (Obama) or running for re-election (Reid and Pelosi) to care about you.

Gordon, while I truly feel for your particular situation, you have to realize the outlook isn't going to be better if Obama manages to cram this through. Congress writes more loopholes into legislation than a crocheted American flag. You my friend will find yourself excluded by both loopholes and rationing.

If the new health care plan is going to be so good why don't you Obama supporters demand Congress not only sign it, but sign up for it.

The silence is deafening.

By lazyfaire: 7/18/09 at 9:58 p.m.; Suggest removal

Doug:

Your usual thoughtful response. Try learning something about economics.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/18/09 at 10:09 p.m.; Suggest removal

"You need to throttle it down."

I'm tired of throttling it down. I'm tired of being told to take my piece and be happy about it. I'm tired of being patted on the head, patronized, demeaned and insulted because of a decision I didn't make.

The free market is a DEATH SENTENCE FOR ME. I WILL DIE. I DON'T WANT TO DIE! SO WILL I RAGE AGAINST IT AND ANYONE WHO SAYS WE SHOULD LET THE FREE MARKET DICTATE HEALTH CARE.

IT. DOESN'T. WORK.

If you're tired of hearing me, report me. Have me banned. Do it and be done with me.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/18/09 at 10:11 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Try learning something about economics."

Try regrowing the blackened husk you call your compassion. Try finding the mote you call your soul. Then we'll talk.

By DWOLLAM: 7/19/09 at 1:07 a.m.; Suggest removal

Gordon-
First of all, believer in what? It is best that you do not presume (def: to suppose to be true without proof) anything about my beliefs, as I do not presume anything about yours.

Please, take the time to read my blog. I have no problem with helping a 'brother in a bind'. But do not force me to do so. If I choose to help you, or any other cause, it is my choice.

As for your son, maybe you and your family are not the type who live a poor lifestyle. Your son had a job; your wife has a job; what about you? If you, or families like you, need a little assistance, fine. But it is not OK for you to receive this assistance forever. But don't force me to help a brother in a bind. I wouldn't force you to help the ASPCA or the Rain forest.

But please tell me why those who choose to smoke, do drugs, partake in dangerous activities or jobs, deserve my money to pay for their health care? They do not.

'Senseless war'? Let's try to stay on topic. But since you brought it up. Do you, and others like you, realize 'the enemy' literally want to kill us for the simple fact that we are American? Are you a believer in that? The choice to go to war was an easy one: ABSOLUTELY!! The decision to do so had the blessing of many Democrats in Washington. Has the war on terror been handled in the best possible manner: debatable at best. That does not change the one ABSOLUTE FACT in regards to maintaining a military complex: without the military to preserve our freedoms, we would have no freedom at all. Discussions such as this would no longer exist. Government sponsored health care (and basically all entitlements) would no longer exist. Why? Because the dictator and/or the socialist/communist government in power would be corrupt beyond all belief.

Be sure to read my "Response to Brian Greenspun."

http://nevadapoliticsbydan.blogspot.com/...

By uddeboda: 7/19/09 at 1:35 a.m.; Suggest removal

DOUGLAS,
From an outside looking in, I can understand your frustration with the "health care" system as it is in the USA. Only if you have bags of money and plenty of insurance, then and only then will a citizen get treatment.
This is totally wrong, its one thing for the rich and whatever is left for the poor.
Uddeboda, Sweden

By JahReb: 7/19/09 at 6:35 a.m.; Suggest removal

DW,

To answer your question (as if it needs to be answered) - America is a country in which all citizens pitch in to help one another for the common good of it citizens. That is the underlying principle that made America the best country in the world. This includes everything from (yes) taxes to simple things like helping thy neighbor in times of need, helping the community in times of need, etc.

Americans help other Americans in times of need. End of story.

Imagine when Fargo flooded earlier this year, if many of the residents would have used your 'me-first' principle and said, 'why should I help, what's in it for me...my home is not in danger, screw them let them deal with it themselves!'. Nope, instead you saw a community of Americans banding together to help one another for the common good of the community. Rich helping poor. Whites helping minorities. A NeoCon nightmare for sure!

America was not founded on the dog eat dog, every man for themselves. Cons dream of the day which America will be made up of caste systems and social anomie...hilarious, and frightening at the same time.

By JahReb: 7/19/09 at 6:49 a.m.; Suggest removal

DW,

Why should I keep volunteering my time to the local animal shelter?

Why should I keep volunteering my time to Big Brothers?

Why should I keep donating to Safe Nest?

What is in it for me?

Why should I waste MY TIME helping others? Especially considering I am not being paid for it, and in many cases, paying out of my own pocket?

Am I stupid? Am I a bleeding heart liberal? Funny, because I thought these were the kind of things the Americans do for one-another? I thought I was contributing my part to society? I was taught that these are the types of things that Americans do for one-another.

By JohnF: 7/19/09 at 7:22 a.m.; Suggest removal

DWOLLAM,

You ask, "Please explain to me why it is my responsibility to ensure that you have adequate health care/coverage?" For the same reason it's my responsibility to ensure that you have adequate health care coverage: we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The opportunity to see a doctor is an essential element of the right to life.

Lazyfaire,
The same goes for food, clothing, and shelter. Everyone has a right to these things. Tell me you don't.

The one thing that both Lazyfaire on DWOLLAM have in common is that they would both rather see you die of an illness than have their tax money used to provide you with a doctor. I wonder how their attitudes would change if they had no medical insurance (and may they never face that situation).

Even good medical insurance has its limits. A friend of mine died a few years ago after a protracted battle with pancreatitis. He was hospitalized for nearly a year while fighting the disease and his medical benefits were maxed out. He was dropped about six weeks before he died. His widow is now bankrupt and is facing foreclosure. Both of them worked hard all their lives, but free market advocates will tell you that this is the way things should be. Why?

GordonShumway,
My sympathy for your son's plight. My wife also has MS. When she was forced to take disability retirement from her job as a teacher, the CCCTA dropped all medical benefits for retirees. My insurance, of course, would not cover her because of her pre-existing condition. At $30,000 per year, her MS medication might not have bankrupted us, but it would have put us on a subsistence level for all other things.

Thankfully, the local MS society was able to find us some assistance in paying for the medication. If you haven't already tried talking to them, please do. Good luck to you and your son both.

By lazyfaire: 7/19/09 at 8:58 a.m.; Suggest removal

DougD says: "Try regrowing the blackened husk you call your compassion. Try finding the mote you call your soul."

What will you do when I and everyone else has run out of money to pay for health care for everyone? Will you force doctors to work for free? Does your health problem entitle you to bankrupt everyone else and punish doctors who refuse to treat you without compensation? Who is lacking in compassion?

JohnF:

You have no right to force anyone to produce or pay for anything, including health care, food, shelter, and clothing. In fact, everyone else has rights that protect them from you doing that.

You see injustice when your friends "work hard all their lives" and then face bankruptcy. But you see no injustice in bankrupting me to pay for them, and I assure you, I've worked hard all my life.

By JohnF: 7/19/09 at 9:34 a.m.; Suggest removal

Lazyfaire,

You propose a free market system which - if instituted in the fashion you seem to prefer - assumes that a certain number of people will be destitute. You can not conciously make the decision to have such a system which denies people their rights to life and liberty without making some sort of allowance for them. To do otherwise is morally bankrupt.

Your right to do as you please ends where my nose begins. When you opt for an economic system which consigns me to poverty you have infringed upon my right to life and liberty. It matters not that we don't know who will be so consigned when we choose the system, it only matters that we know that, having made that choice, these people will exist.

This is why governments are instituted among men in the first place; to safeguard our rights and to protect us from tyranny. In this case, the tyranny of the marketplace.

Don't get me wrong; I certainly don't buy into the "from each according to his abilities" nonsense. In almost all respects I'm a supporter of free markets. When we talk about those things that are essential for our rights to life and liberty, however, we can't trust to the vagaries of the market. Any system that denies any member any of these things is unjust.

You won't be bankrupted to pay for health care for all. Quite the contrary. You can look this up: Medicare provides health care to senior citizens for a lower per patient cost than the private sector spends to provide health care to younger, far healthier people. Anyway, higher taxes won't bankrupt you, especially when the cost of that tax will be offset by the removal of payments you make now for your own health care.

I guess we have a different idea of what constitutes injustice. You see a just society as one that defends your right not to be burdened with anything for the common good; the only things that should matter to the individual are things that benefit the individual himself.

I see a different society as being more just. I value individual liberty, but I also understand that sometimes what is good for the general welfare is also good for me. I understand that making a few sacrifices - in the form of paying taxes - is proper when we have universal education, when all people have food to eat, when all people have clothes on their backs, shelter from the elements, and access to medical care. Once everyone has those things, they're on their own.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/19/09 at 10:08 a.m.; Suggest removal

JohnF:

You're wasting your time. Lazyfaire has bought into the Randian philosophy lock, stock and barrel.

By uddeboda: 7/19/09 at 10:30 a.m.; Suggest removal

What are families paying for private "insurance", several 1000s of dollars every year, I have seen some figures like 8, 10, 12 thousand for a family, there is no way a family would be paying anything like this, perhaps a 1000 or 2 at the most, so a family would be saving many many 1000s every year. The only people who are whinning are the insurance companies who are cheating their customers left right and centre

By Casca: 7/19/09 at 11:03 a.m.; Suggest removal

It is a shame that some Americans are so gullible, to the outlandish propaganda and lies spat in the newspapers, television and radio about Obama's health care agenda. They have demonized the British, Canadian and other worthy plans. Hidden under a sub-rosa undercover, these radical entities are determined to keep the special interest organizations in absolute power. Comprising of the money-draining profitable insurance companies and their rich stockholders. They don't want any changes to the broken system of medical care, because it will hurt the status quo. I was born in England, in the county of Sussex and until the inception of the European Union and the European Parliament dictating to Britain. That they must accept millions of foreign workers, the nations medical system was exemplary. I never had to wonder if I would have to file bankruptcy, to pay my medical bills, or listen to the incessant ring of debt collectors on the phone.

On several occasions I ended up in the cottage hospital and their was never a cost applied to it, never a ream of paperwork. No doctor, no hospital or specialist ask me for my Social Security number, drivers license or if I was covered by a predatory for-profit insurer. Today the British Isles is being submerged under a barrage of legal and illegal immigrants, who have never paid into the system, have caused some rationing. Prior to the importation of foreign labor my trips to doctor, to hospital, the eye or a dentist was paid from my taxation. Unless we pass a national health care agenda, Americans will never know what it's like to breeze through their lives, without worrying about paying for health care? Tell your Senators and Congressman you want an alternative to the--GET RICH-- insurance companies, before a Universal health care is killed. 202-224-312 REMEMBER THE INVESTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS DON'T WANT THEIR PIECE OF THE $$$TRILLION$$$ DOLLAR PIE DISTURBED. EVEN SOME POLITICIANS HAVE THEIR DIRTY FINGERS IN THE PIE?

By DWOLLAM: 7/19/09 at 12:13 p.m.; Suggest removal

JahReb-
Welcome to the discussion. However, I find it utterly incredible how much you miss my point. I am not denying the need to help one another. What I am saying is, do not tell me who, when and how much to help. Instead of helping a fellow citizen with some genetic difficulty they were born with; maybe I would rather help children with AIDS. Another 'someone' born with an ailment not of their choosing. By choosing a child born with AIDS, I know where my resources are going. By giving health care to those who choose not purchase it is not how I want my resources spent.

Additionally, when I give of my resources, I DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING IN RETURN! Mine is not a 'me first' attitude. Mine is a 'I choose who is first' to receive my resources attitude. When I choose to make my contribution to society, it is the freedom that this country was founded on that says it is my right I choose where to contribute.

Once a month I drive over 400 miles, round trip, to spend a weekend in the Arizona desert to clean, feed and shelter exotic animals. I am not paid to do this. In fact, I spend my own time and money for tools, travel, food and lodging. Please explain what benefit I could possibly gain from this endeavor.

JohnF-
You are absolutely correct when you say "we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". However, do your rights include diminishing mine? I would think not. And no, I would not rather see you die. But my tax dollars are already being used to pay for health care for those in need. Now you want more. When will it end? I have in fact faced medical difficulty without insurance. I paid for the surgery; not government or anyone else. It was not fun, which is why I choose a path in life which minimizes health care needed and the cost thereof.

(cont.)

By DWOLLAM: 7/19/09 at 12:14 p.m.; Suggest removal

JohnF - (cont.)
Again, for families similar to yours, I am all for providing all the government (or other) assistance necessary. But you have not addressed my concerns with regards to those who choose not to buy insurance or lead less-than-optimal lifestyles. Is this not, albeit indirectly, a 'me first' attitude? Are you a proponent of providing health for those people?

Lastly, I believe you make my argument with your closing remarks to Gordon. Yes, it very unfortunate for anyone to experience the plight that he, his family and others endure. "Thankfully the MS Society was there to help you" is my point exactly. If I choose to donate to MS, cancer, or children with AIDS, it is my choice as to how much and when. By having the government provide the assistance you needed you are denying my 'right to liberty and happiness': the liberty of choosing who, what, when and where, and the happiness of having done so. Would I be morally bankrupt for choosing cancer to receive my resources over MS? I hope not, but it is my choice. Further, it is not your place to determine who is morally bankrupt. That decision rests with the Creator. lazyfaire will answer to his Creator at the appropriate time; it is then he will suffer the consequences or benefits of his choices.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/19/09 at 12:19 p.m.; Suggest removal

DWOLLAM:

You're contradicting yourself. At one point, you are all for providing government assistance to those who "need it" (based on pre-existing conditions). But then one paragraph later you say that "having the government provide the assistance you needed you are denying my 'right to liberty and happiness'".

Which is it that you support? Giving assistance to those who truly need it through the government, or "relying on the kindness of strangers" without governmental action at all?

By formervegas76: 7/19/09 at 1:04 p.m.; Suggest removal

doug, remember your arguing with the most selfish people on the planet, most probably never did a days service to this country.

By DWOLLAM: 7/19/09 at 1:19 p.m.; Suggest removal

Not quite contradictory, but I see your point; allow me clarify. Also stated in my post is that "my tax dollars are already being used to pay for health care for those in need", and no, I do not take issue with that. I take issue with those in need wanting more. Thus, what I should have made more clear (thank you again, Doug) is that by providing more assistance "you are denying my 'right to liberty and happiness". Does that help?

To answer your question: I support giving assistance to those who truly need it, for the exact amount of assistance needed, from the currently available funds; and to rely on myself for any and all of my endeavors. If I need assistance, I will ask; I do not EXPECT assistance from anyone.

According to the Constitution, "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...". Establish, insure, provide and secure all imply absolute requirement(s). Promote, on the other, is not an absolute; government is not required to "provide" general Welfare. Additionally, the 1oth Amendment provide that any power not bestowed on the federal government by said Constitution is reserved for the States. Accordingly this should not even be discussed as a federal tax/issue.

http://nevadapoliticsbydan.blogspot.com/...

By DWOLLAM: 7/19/09 at 1:21 p.m.; Suggest removal

formervegas76 -
Please explain, what exactly do you mean by service?

By lazyfaire: 7/19/09 at 1:55 p.m.; Suggest removal

JohnF:

"You propose a free market system which - if instituted in the fashion you seem to prefer - assumes that a certain number of people will be destitute."

The system I prefer would be primarily free-market, subsidized with tax credits, to realize free-market benefits, namely lower costs, higher quality, and greater access. Catastrophic insurance would supplement health savings accounts. Finally, a taxpayer-funded system to take care of the indigent and those with conditions that cannot be handled by the private sector (pre-existing conditions, etc.). Health care would not be tied to a person's job.

"When you opt for an economic system which consigns me to poverty you have infringed upon my right to life and liberty."

If a dictator does what you say, I agree with you. Your rights don't include forcing someone to provide you with anything. None of them give you the right to seize my property for your benefit.

"the tyranny of the marketplace"

Nonsense. The marketplace is the antithesis of tyranny.

"Higher taxes won't bankrupt you, especially when the cost of that tax will be offset by the removal of payments you make now for your own health care."

You cannot know this, either generally about the system or specifically about me. If universal health care is certain to provide more access and better quality at a lower cost, you must know that I, being supremely selfish and greedy, would be first in line for it. In fact, I believe the opposite is true. Countries that have universal health care have slower economic growth rates and higher unemployment than the U.S. That means lower standards of living.

"You see a just society as one that defends your right not to be burdened with anything for the common good."

I do have the right to be selfish. But I see a legitimate role for government in doing what the Constitution says it is supposed to do, namely provide for the common defense and promote (not provide) the general welfare. The general welfare is promoted by whatever facilitates citizens' freedom and ability to prosper, such as building infrastructure, protecting property, and enforcing contracts. Not taking property from one group and giving it to another.

"...when all people have food to eat, when all people have clothes on their backs, shelter from the elements, and access to medical care. Once everyone has those things, they're on their own."

And if they are irresponsible, and they squander those things after you take from me to give to them, then what? Do they have a right to my property only once? If so, is it really a right? And what do you do with them then? And what about my rights? How long do you think I'll produce only to have you confiscate it and give it to others? In any case, what motivation will they have to secure those things themselves if they know they have a right to take them from me?

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/19/09 at 2:25 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Countries that have universal health care have slower economic growth rates and higher unemployment than the U.S. That means lower standards of living."

List of countries by Human Development Index, which calculates standard of living worldwide through 2006 (most recent statistical data):

1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Canada
4. Australia
5. Ireland
6. The Netherlands
15. United States

List of unemployment rates per country, based on data from each individual nation:

United States - 9.5%
United Kingdom - 4.8%
France - 8.9%
Switzerland - 3.6%
Canada - 8.6%

Now, what was your point again?

By DWOLLAM: 7/19/09 at 2:30 p.m.; Suggest removal

lazyfaire-
Dean on and well said!!!

JohnF, Doug, et al. -
How about this plan to reduce taxes by 5%, increase (forced) charitable giving and maintain the current levels of government entitlements? Take a look.

http://nevadapoliticsbydan.blogspot.com/...

By DWOLLAM: 7/19/09 at 3:42 p.m.; Suggest removal

Doug-
Apparently standard of living equates to high tax rates (personal income + VAT). While overall effective tax rates are difficult enough to determine here in the US, for the nations you listed, the highest wage earners will pay the following rates:
Iceland (36.7+24.5)=61.2
Norway (47.8+25)=72.8
Canada (29+10)=39
Australia (46.5+10)=56.5
Netherlands (52+19)=71
France (50+19.6)=69.6
UK (40+15)=55
Switzerland (13+11.2)=24.2
US (35+0)=35

France also has a 21% rate titled "Social Charges"

Take it a step further. The lowest brackets are as follows:
Iceland (0+24.5)=24.5
Norway (28+25)=53
Canada (15+10)=25
Australia (17+10)=27
Netherlands (0+19)=19
France (0+19.6)=19.6
UK (0+15)=15
Switzerland (0+11.2)=11.2
US (15+0)=15

In both scenarios, France imposes a Social Charge of 21% and Switzerland is the only nation that has a lower overall tax burden than the US.

I'm just saying...

By lazyfaire: 7/19/09 at 6:28 p.m.; Suggest removal

DougD:

My point is that every country with universal health care would have a higher standard of living without it. You didn't mention GDP growth. As for unemployment, try looking at longer-term data. Statement stands.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/19/09 at 7:02 p.m.; Suggest removal

"You didn't mention GDP growth."

You asked for standard of living and unemployment. You didn't ask for GDP growth, and I'm not a mind-reader.

And in terms of that, the United States is ahead of only the U.K. (barely), Spain (barely) France, and Canada amongst countries in terms of real GDP growth rate. We're far behind Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and the Netherlands. We're just behind Germany and Belgium on that curve as well.

I think your point is very weak.

By lazyfaire: 7/19/09 at 7:11 p.m.; Suggest removal

DougD:

No need to read my mind. Just read my post.

By lazyfaire: 7/19/09 at 7:21 p.m.; Suggest removal

By the way, Doug, in 2007, the U.S. had the second-highest median household income in terms of purchasing power parity (that's a economics term, so I don't expect you to know what it is), behind Switzerland. Maybe you should look into moving to Iceland. I hear their economy is doing great right now.

By 70aarcuda: 7/20/09 at midnight; Suggest removal

obama govt health care is a power grab...just like the cap and trade...another power grab...

By uddeboda: 7/20/09 at 4:58 a.m.; Suggest removal

lasyfaire,

There are several tables one can look at for information, so how about these three.

This article includes three lists of countries of the world sorted by their gross domestic product per capita at nominal values, the value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year, converted at market exchange rates to current U.S. dollars, divided by the average (or mid-year) population for the same year

IMF 2008 USA at 15th place with $46859

World Bank 2008 USA at 12th place with $46716

CIA World Factbook 2008 USA at 17th place with $47103

By lazyfaire: 7/20/09 at 5:51 a.m.; Suggest removal

Swede:

So your contention would be that government-run health care increases per capita GDP? Why not let the government run everything, then?

The railing against profits in health care runs counter to all of the experience with the free market and government-run enterprises. With the free market, quality and quantity are maximized, cost is minimized. With government, quality and quantity decline and costs rise. To the extent that any country has a high standard of living, credit the free market. To the extent that standards of living are not as high as they could be, credit government.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/20/09 at 7:27 a.m.; Suggest removal

"Why not let the government run everything, then?"

Cut the crap - that's a slippery slope fallacy and you know it.

By paladin: 7/20/09 at 8:49 a.m.; Suggest removal

Since MD Anderson was central to the editor's comments, may I point out that Anderson is cutting jobs and budgets right now? When was the last time the federal government did that? Does the editor think that when expenses outstrip revenues that the Federal Insurance Program will do the same? I'm disappointed that the editor is so lazy that he didn't research the private funding, donations, cost-cutting and job reductions at Anderson.

By lazyfaire: 7/20/09 at 9:21 a.m.; Suggest removal

DougD:

It's a legitimate question. Please explain why the government should not run everything if it can run health care so efficiently. Please explain why profits ensure optimum use of resources in every other industry, but cannot in health care.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/20/09 at 9:36 a.m.; Suggest removal

"It's a legitimate question."

No, it's not. It's an absurd question on its face, and a loaded question designed to get the response you want rather than a non-biased answer.

I don't answer absurd and fallacious questions because they are not designed to elevate discourse but rather designed to waste time.

By lazyfaire: 7/20/09 at 1:06 p.m.; Suggest removal

Nice try, Doug. You claim that the government can run our health care better than the free market, and that our standard of living would be improved if it did. Prove it.

By henderson: 7/20/09 at 1:31 p.m.; Suggest removal

To quote Margaret Thatcher, "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/20/09 at 2:10 p.m.; Suggest removal

"You claim that the government can run our health care better than the free market, and that our standard of living would be improved if it did."

All I have to do is look around at the local ERs and read the hundreds of stories I have seen to tell you that the free market can't run health care.

Maybe you should read those stories - about people who went bankrupt because of health insurance "max outs" because they had a catastrophic illness. About people who got sick at a young age and are now forever marked as uninsurable. About the people who wait at the ER for hours to see someone, and the doctors who state the cases they see are often now-hopeless because people couldn't afford the preventative treatments.

Read about the people choosing between putting food on the table and the medication they need (that story was on MSNBC last month). About the people who hope they can make it to the next paycheck in order to pay for the medication they need but their insurance says they won't cover.

It's all there. Open your eyes and do some reading.

By lazyfaire: 7/20/09 at 2:18 p.m.; Suggest removal

DougD:

"All I have to do is look around at the local ERs and read the hundreds of stories I have seen to tell you that the free market can't run health care."

We do not have a free market for health care. Why don't we try that first? It wouldn't cost anything, versus $1.5 trillion (at least) paid by one group for the benefit of another group.

You don't think of this as an economic issue. It is. You might spend some time learning about economics before you go confiscating working peoples' money.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/20/09 at 3:54 p.m.; Suggest removal

'You don't think of this as an economic issue. It is. You might spend some time learning about economics before you go confiscating working peoples' money."

It's not - it's a HUMAN RIGHTS issue.

And I am a working individual, tool. I work 2 jobs to pay my bills. So don't tell me I'm a sponge.

By lazyfaire: 7/20/09 at 4:26 p.m.; Suggest removal

"It's a HUMAN RIGHTS issue."

If you have a right to take my property to pay for your health care, what will you do if I quit working? Would you prosecute me for violating your rights?

Why don't you think about these things? You make ridiculous claims about human rights. You say you've read so much, but you really don't think much.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/20/09 at 5:14 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Why don't you think about these things? You make ridiculous claims about human rights. You say you've read so much, but you really don't think much."

Ridiculous claim? It's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25. The United States voted in favor of said Declaration in 1948. As far as I know, we haven't retracted our support of this.

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

By SgtRock: 7/20/09 at 6:05 p.m.; Suggest removal

"About people who got sick at a young age and are now forever marked as uninsurable"

There is no such thing.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/20/09 at 6:10 p.m.; Suggest removal

"There is no such thing."

Tell that to my friend who got cancer at age 3 - she's absolutely uninsurable because of it. She'll get a good laugh out of your ignorance.

By lazyfaire: 7/20/09 at 7:42 p.m.; Suggest removal

DougD:

You have got to be kidding. That doesn't even deserve a response.

By SgtRock: 7/20/09 at 7:49 p.m.; Suggest removal

There is no such thing.

If you are poor or disable then there is Medicare or Medicaid.

Also, private insurance companies can only look back at the last 6 months of medical diagnoses or procedures for denying coverage for pre-existing coverage.

If you covered by a group plan for 18 months, another insurance company can not deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions.

There are certain basic health insurance plans, mini-meds, that are forbidden to denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.

If one has a major illness that prevents them from working for a certain time period then they are disable and can get Medicaid or Medicare.

If they are under the 18 then there are government programs called HIPP that provides either private insurance or Medicaid or Medicare.

If you do not have a major illness then you can get mini-meds to cover basic medical needs but once you are recovered and 6 months have passed then you can get regular private health insurance.

Some employer group plans that are HMO's have no pre-existing clauses. Even those with pre-existing coverage clauses can also only look back at 6 months and after either 12 months or 18 months must cover all conditions. So one can also get a job that has offers group coverage.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/20/09 at 8:20 p.m.; Suggest removal

"You have got to be kidding. That doesn't even deserve a response."

THAT'S your answer. I cite it, quote it, and you dismiss it? Nice tactics there - apparently international treaties don't count in your world.

And Rock, she doesn't qualify for ANY of those things - she either makes too much money (in a job with NO employer benefits), is too old (she's in her early 20's), or too young (post-cancer conditions are NOT considered disability under Medicare).

And health benefits are often the FIRST thing cut by employers right now - they're being cut at the place I'm temping (and our temp contracts are written in such a way that we NEVER QUALIFY FOR BENEFITS).

By lazyfaire: 7/20/09 at 9:13 p.m.; Suggest removal

DougD:

If I can stop laughing long enough, I'll respond. It isn't a treaty and it isn't legally binding. If only most countries that signed it believe half of what's in it. Article 25 is unenforceable anyway. This thing can't guarantee anyone the right to take the product of another person's labor any more than our Constitution can. It's looney, and you're looney if you actually think it applies to us. Really, you would do much better to learn about scarcity of resources, opportunity cost, and supply and demand.

By SgtRock: 7/21/09 at 3:41 a.m.; Suggest removal

"And Rock, she doesn't qualify for ANY of those things - she either makes too much money (in a job with NO employer benefits), is too old (she's in her early 20's), or too young (post-cancer conditions are NOT considered disability under Medicare)."

1) She can buy her own insurance.
2) Insurance companies can not look past 6 months for pre-existing coverage. Her cancer was at age 3.

Just a FYI, Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a treaty.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/21/09 at 5:43 a.m.; Suggest removal

"1) She can buy her own insurance."

No, she can't. She's tried. Once again, you're being dense.

"2) Insurance companies can not look past 6 months for pre-existing coverage. Her cancer was at age 3."

Um, what planet are you living on? It's a CONTINUING condition, so the 6 month window DOESN'T APPLY. Just like it doesn't apply for me.

By SgtRock: 7/21/09 at 7:10 a.m.; Suggest removal

" It's a CONTINUING condition"

So exactly how is she paying for treatment..........

And exactly what is this post cancer treatment that last for 17 years?

I am curious to hear this details about this BS story.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/21/09 at 7:26 a.m.; Suggest removal

"And exactly what is this post cancer treatment that last for 17 years?"

It's all the bone and joint problems CAUSED by the chemotherapy treatments she had when she was 3 (the radiation and steroid treatments screwed up her normal development). Those are considered continuations on the original condition under most (if not all) health plans.

In addition, because she had cancer she is now considered predisposed to getting it again. That increases her risk beyond what insurance companies are willing to accept.

She has a no-frills basic school insurance policy, but that only lasts as long as she is in school. She had to forego her graduation (even though she met all the requirements) because she would lose the medical coverage she needs for the treatments on her feet and legs (she's had at least a dozen surgeries on both feet, ankles and knees).

By SgtRock: 7/21/09 at 11:57 a.m.; Suggest removal

"She has a no-frills basic school insurance policy"

I thought you said she has no insurance. I guess the facts keep changing.

And supposely, it is a no frills policy that pays for surgeries.

"In addition, because she had cancer she is now considered predisposed to getting it again. That increases her risk beyond what insurance companies are willing to accept."

That would be illegal. They only can look back 6 months.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/21/09 at 11:58 a.m.; Suggest removal

"That would be illegal. They only can look back 6 months."

Yes they can if the condition is CONTINUING. Her condition is CONTINUING. Stop being an idiot, it's really unbecoming.

By darthbry: 7/21/09 at 2:16 p.m.; Suggest removal

One thing you are all forgetting is the doctors. Let's take a person who goes to school unitl they are 30, at how many $100000.00's, and tell them they are going to make 50 - 75k a year. The doctors who are worth seeing will 1). stop practice and start teaching 2). only take cash pay 3).just won't become doctors. Really, really think about what you are asking for.. I don't want some wet behind the ears, never diagnosed a cold, (basically a step above min wage) doctor treating me. I like the ones I can choose to see. I know, I heard we won't lose our choice of doctors....b.s. you tell a doctor making $125 - 250k a year that he is taking a 100-150k pay cut for the greater good and watch what happens. Fewer doctors, and qualified nurses as well. It will kill the medical profession. But, But, at least everyone will be covered....to bad there won't be anyone there to treat them.

By getalife: 7/21/09 at 5:54 p.m.; Suggest removal

Here is a real fact for all you fact checkers......Iceland is bankrupt. This is in large part due to its' entitlement programs.

If the Obama train keeps rolling we are next.

How can you tell nobody in congress posts here? Because the majority of people who post here can read!

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/21/09 at 6:15 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Here is a real fact for all you fact checkers......Iceland is bankrupt. This is in large part due to its' entitlement programs."

Um...no.

Iceland went broke because the banks went heavy into the mortgage industry, then went boom when the market tanked.

"With the privatization of the banking sector, completed in 2000, Iceland's banks used substantial wholesale funding to finance their entry into the local mortgage market and acquire foreign financial firms, mainly in Britain and Scandinavia"In just five years, the banks went from being almost entirely domestic lenders to becoming major international financial intermediaries. In 2000, says Richard Portes, a professor of economics at London Business School, two-thirds of their financing came from domestic sources and one-third from abroad. More recently--until the crisis hit--that ratio was reversed. But as wholesale funding markets seized up, Iceland's banks started to collapse under a mountain of foreign debt." - Business Week, October 10th, 2008.

Maybe you should invest in some reading materials.

By SgtRock: 7/21/09 at 6:24 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Yes they can if the condition is CONTINUING."

You keep changing your story.

One second it is she had no insurance but now she does.

The next second it is she has a no frills plan but you say the insurance paid for several surgeries.

The next second you said she can't get insurance because they say "had cancer she is now considered predisposed to getting it again" then you changed that to an on-going condition.

What exactly is her on-going condition?

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/21/09 at 7:27 p.m.; Suggest removal

"What exactly is her on-going condition?"

Every ailment she has had with respect to her bones and joints is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of the original condition. Therefore, by insurance company logic, it is a continuing condition. Therefore, it is a pre-existing condition that continues to this day.

Wait, why am I bothering? You act like you know everything about medicine, law, foreign policy, international relations... Even when people who KNOW what they're talking about through first-hand knowledge (you really know more about the Swedish health care system than SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN SWEEDEN?), you claim your knowledge is superior.

By SgtRock: 7/21/09 at 9:10 p.m.; Suggest removal

I can read.

Also, I do not get caught changing the BS stories that I tell every few minutes.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/21/09 at 9:50 p.m.; Suggest removal

"I can read."

You could've fooled me...

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/21/09 at 9:56 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Also, I do not get caught changing the BS stories that I tell every few minutes."

Here, have some reading material. Prove that you can understand how the private system screws people.

"A 32 year old woman, married with 3 children came down with breast cancer and her HMO denied her care that cost $150,000.00 which the HMO was obligated to pay for. This resulted in a delay of 6 months while her family and friends raised the money so she could go to another medical center to have the treatment. She later died and it was found out that the medical director of the HMO, who had no expertise in breast disease or cancer and was not a practicing physician, was being given bonus pay at the end of the year based on how much the HMO was profiting."

"A hospital was fined millions of dollars when a family sued because their family member was discharged too early from the hospital. The court found out that when the hospital discovered that the person's medical insurance was running out it pressured the patient's physician to discharge the patient early."

"I am the Physician-Director of the Women's Services Department at a major, local University student health center. We care for over 30,000 female college students. Two years ago, we saw a 20 year old student who was found to have a small, benign breast cyst. She was told to observe it and report back one month later. On her return visit, the cyst had disappeared. She had no subsequent visits or problems for two years. She applied to Blue Cross for routine health coverage. She honestly listed our health center as the last health care she had received. Pre-insurance records on her were requested by Blue Cross. They agreed to cover her, but wanted to "EXCLUDE ALL DISORDERS OF THE BREAST AND REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS" for 5 years!"