10 Questions for Supporters of Obamacare

[DarrinS]

10 Questions for Supporters of Obamacare (http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2009/07/28/10_questions_for_supporters_of_obamacare)





1. President Barack Obama repeatedly tells us that one reason national health care is needed is that we can no longer afford to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. But if Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally insolvent and gradually bankrupting our society, why is a government takeover of medical care for the rest of society a good idea? What large-scale government program has not eventually spiraled out of control, let alone stayed within its projected budget? Why should anyone believe that nationalizing health care would create the first major government program to "pay for itself," let alone get smaller rather than larger over time? Why not simply see how the Democrats can reform Medicare and Medicaid before nationalizing much of the rest of health care?


2. President Obama reiterated this past week that "no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition." This is an oft-repeated goal of the president's and the Democrats' health care plan. But if any individual can buy health insurance at any time, why would anyone buy health insurance while healthy? Why would I not simply wait until I got sick or injured to buy the insurance? If auto insurance were purchasable once one got into an accident, why would anyone purchase auto insurance before an accident? Will the Democrats next demand that life insurance companies sell life insurance to the terminally ill? The whole point of insurance is that the healthy buy it and thereby provide the funds to pay for the sick. Demanding that insurance companies provide insurance to everyone at any time spells the end of the concept of insurance. And if the answer is that the government will now make it illegal not to buy insurance, how will that be enforced? How will the government check on 300 million people?

3. Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the word "care" for the word "insurance?" it is patently untrue that millions of Americans do not receive health care. Millions of Americans do not have health insurance but virtually every American (and non-American on American soil) receives health care.

4. No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its budget health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of having the state decide what medical care to ration?

5. According to Dr. David Gratzer, health care specialist at the Manhattan Institute, "While 20 years ago pharmaceuticals were largely developed in Europe, European price controls made drug development an American enterprise. Fifteen of the 20 top-selling drugs worldwide this year were birthed in the United States." Given how many lives -- in America and throughout the world – American pharmaceutical companies save, and given how expensive it is to develop any new drug, will the price controls on drugs envisaged in the Democrats' bill improve or impair Americans' health?

6. Do you really believe that private insurance could survive a "public option"? Or is this really a cover for the ideal of single-payer medical care? How could a private insurance company survive a "public option" given that private companies have to show a profit and government agencies do not have to – and given that a private enterprise must raise its own money to be solvent and a government option has access to others' money -- i.e., taxes?

7. Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly as superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government will be severely cut? Haven't the laws of human behavior and common sense been repealed here in arguing that while doctors, hospitals and drug companies will make significantly less money they will continue to provide the same level of uniquely excellent care?

8. Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical lawsuits and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance, shouldn't any meaningful "reform" of health care provide some remedy for frivolous malpractice lawsuits?

9. Given how weak the U.S. economy is, given how weak the U.S. dollar is, and given how much in debt the U.S. is in, why would anyone seek to have the U.S. spend another trillion dollars? Even if all the other questions here had legitimate answers, wouldn't the state of the U.S. economy alone argue against national health care at this time?

10. Contrary to the assertion of President Obama -- "we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it" -- we are healthier. We wait far less time for procedures and surgeries. Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy. Do you think a government takeover of American medicine will enable this medical excellence to continue?

[DarrinS]

crickets?

[SonOfAGun]

I'm the one who asks questions mister. :nope

[DarrinS]

^ :lol

[ElNono]

Maybe there are no supporters of ObamaCare?
I could answer some of those though. It's funny because some of the opponents to ObamaCare can probably also answer too.

[Supergirl]

Those are some of the 10 stupidest things I think I've seen anyone write in a long time. If I have the time, I'll craft a response. But a little basic research could refute at least 8 out of 10 of them.

[101A]

Those are good questions; is this really true?


Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy.

Link?

Please.

[101A]

Those are some of the 10 stupidest things I think I've seen anyone write in a long time. If I have the time, I'll craft a response. But a little basic research could refute at least 8 out of 10 of them.

:wakeup

[DarrinS]

Those are some of the 10 stupidest things I think I've seen anyone write in a long time. If I have the time, I'll craft a response. But a little basic research could refute at least 8 out of 10 of them.


Why are the questions stupid? Please elaborate.

[Crookshanks]

Why are the questions stupid? Please elaborate.

Remember - Supergirl believes that food, shelter and healthcare are consitutional rights; so those questions don't make any sense to her.

[ElNono]

I'm not sure that the questions themselves are stupid, but the author is definitely pretty uninformed/ignorant/purposely biased. Not to mention that some of these 'questions' are merely his opinions, and fairly easy to debunk with real world examples.
I mean, probably about half of them we discussed already in other threads.
I don't really have the time to go through each one right now, but if I find some time later on, I'll chip in.

[SonOfAGun]

Supergirl,

How can healthcare be a right if it can be taken away at the discretion of a bureaucracy?

[Wild Cobra]

I think the only people who think those are stupid questions have not familiarized themselves with the truth on this subject matter.

Those are good questions!

[ChumpDumper]

I count over twenty questions. And I neither support nor oppose the plan.

[Rogue]

I had never seen any such detailed policy or legislation during Bush's administrations. Obama has a strong will to resolve the problems we're facing from the entire economy to health care and insurance, which I appreciate, but it's pretty clear dude hasn't got any effective solution to these illnesses.

[Wild Cobra]

I had never seen any such detailed policy or legislation during Bush's administrations. Obama has a strong will to resolve the problems we're facing from the entire economy to health care and insurance, which I appreciate, but it's pretty clear dude hasn't got any effective solution to these illnesses.
We can all have fantasies. I'd be in heaven if I could make mine come true. That's all Obama's words are. Fantasy. No basis in what is real.

Hope and Change... Does not make it happen.

[ElNono]

I was going to start writing some answers here, but I actually was sidetracked by reading some of the comments left on this story... here's one that caught my eye (LINK (http://comments.realclearpolitics.com/read/1/396232.html)):

DrRythym,

Nice try. Saying something does not make it so. The only healthcare plan scored by the CBO to actually save money over the next decade is the Rep. Pete Stark bill. That would be the single payer bill. In other words, the least expensive plan is the single payer plan. The government plan. The Socialized plan. Of course, we can't even talk about that plan because of people like you who are scared off by words. Good thing we don't talk of Socialized national defense, or people like you would be clamoring for the private sector solution to fighting terrorists. Nothing like the good old days of the Minute Men....

Tell me, why does the greatest healthcare system in the world cost twice as much per person as any other, while delivering results that are no better (and in many cases worse)?

As for your suggestion that private companies are more efficient, again, saying it doesn't make it so. I suspect that you actually understand that "net income" is income after expenses, and expenses include things like the unimaginably high overhead associated with running a profit-based enterprise. And yes, I do believe the government can run the public option more efficiently than a private company, in part because it won't spend tens of millions of dollars seeking ways to rescind policies after the fact, undperpay claims to providers and deny coverage to beneficiaries. Oh, and it won't create any billionaire CEOs either.

Of course, if your argument about the private sector had any merit at all, you wouldn't be so frightened of that "Socialized" plan run by that terribly inefficient government you love to hate. Why on earth would a public option offer plans so attractive that they put the private sector out of business? It can't just be your "subsidy" argument, because we already have ample evidence that consumers of health insurance do not make their decisions solely on price. They consider quality. Simply stated, if the government plan was as horrible as you conservatives like to say, only the poor would stay in it--and that is no way for a public plan to put private plans out of business. So, which is it? Is the public plan so horrible that people won't want to stay, or is it so great and inexpensive that it will put private insurers out of business? Pick one.

On to your use of phony statistics. You claim that 83% of Americans are happy with their insurance. That is questionable, as it assumes that every single person with insurance (no matter how crappy or expensive) is "happy". I doubt that, because I don't think I'm alone in both having insurance and not being "happy" with the coverage. Sure, it is better to have it than not, but the cost, the administrative hassle and the fact that it is tied to a job (which, like any job, can go away) does not make me "happy". But since you are so into statistics, what percentage of the public supports the inclusion of a public plan? The answer to that question begins to address the mandate you think doesn't exist.

Finally, on taxes, your suggestion that I should be pleased that the top 1% pay 40% of MY taxes and that I should be grateful that such people "were able to make something of themselves." I am quite grateful that this country has afforded these people the opportunity to earn so much money and accumulate so much wealth. Of course, their share of the total wealth is even more out of proportion with their size than their share of taxes, but folks like you always seem to leave that fact out. What I also find interesting is that the way you wrote your section on taxes you appear to assume that a liberal like me, who supports the notion that the top 1.2% should pay a little more (it comes out to about $500 a year for someone making $400,000 a year) to ensure that all Americans have health insurance, is one of those who didn't make something of himself. Sorry to inform you, but I am in that top 1%, and I am quite happy to pay more in taxes to help change the abomination called the U.S. healthcare system.

See, I understand that under the last 8 years I received tens of thousands of dollars of tax cuts that I did not need (of course I "like" the money, who doesn't; but I didn't need it). I have seen my net worth grow dramatically over the last 2 decades, and I know that I face the future with a sense of security and confidence that most Americans simply don't have given the state of our economy.

That's the difference between you and I. I feel blessed by the opportunity this country has given me, and I recognize that it isn't all about me. I am happy to give something back to help make life better for those less fortunate. I don't default to the assumption that if you aren't in the top 1% or 10% it is because YOU failed to make something of yourself (or the reverse, as I know many, many people in my category who did not "make something of themselves" as much as they managed to get born into a family where an ancestor did...).

------------------------

I don't necessarily agree with absolutely all his points, but there's a lot things I certainly share.

[ElNono]

Those are good questions; is this really true?

Link?

Please.

I looked. Hard and wide. I couldn't find anything even remotely close to support those claims.
If you find anything, let me know.

[Wild Cobra]

Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy.I don't know where it comes from, but I've heard it discussed before. The bottom line is that we have extended people's lives through medicine far more than other nations.

[ElNono]

I don't know where it comes from, but I've heard it discussed before. The bottom line is that we have extended people's lives through medicine far more than other nations.

Link?

[Wild Cobra]

Link?
And your reading comprehension is what?

I don't know where it comes from, but I've heard it discussed before.

I would have provided a link if I knew where it came from!

[SonOfAGun]

Supergirl,

How can healthcare be a right if it can be taken away at the discretion of a bureaucracy?

[ElNono]

I don't know where it comes from, but I heard discussions that cows can fly before.
The bottom line is that cows fly higher in our country than anywhere else in the world.

That's basically what your statement looks like without any kind of source to substanciate it.

[Wild Cobra]

That's basically what your statement looks like without any kind of source to substanciate it.Ha... ha...

I found a link for different actuarial tables, but to look at them, one needs an account:

The Human Mortality Database (http://www.mortality.org/)

It's a free account, and I just started looking at it.

[ducks]

I count over questions. And I neither support nor oppose the plan.

sissy

[SnakeBoy]

I could refute all of those questions....if I had time.

[ChumpDumper]

sissyWhy? I don't have an opinion at this time. I know yours it automatically against anything Obama does, but I'm simply not as mindless as you.

[sabar]

People need to stop throwing around the word refute if they don't know how to use it. You don't refute questions!

The United States has highest overall cancer survival rate among world nations. Canada and Japan also do very well, with the rest of Europe behind them.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18639491

It should not be surprising that the U.S./Canada/Japan have the highest rates, as they are affluent nations that work on the bleeding edge of heart and cancer research.

Obviously the type of health care system is no factor or the U.S. wouldn't be ranked at the top alongside nations with socialized health care.

This leads me to believe that the move to involve the government in health care is just that, a power grab by our leaders. No one up top really cares about raising the life expectancy of homeless bums and poor people. Everyone is just after the poor vote.

Government marches towards a tyranny of the majority.

[ElNono]

People need to stop throwing around the word refute if they don't know how to use it. You don't refute questions!

I'm going to be anal on this, and argue that when the question is argumentative, you absolutely can refute the argument presented in said question.


The United States has highest overall cancer survival rate among world nations. Canada and Japan also do very well, with the rest of Europe behind them.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18639491


Here's another source I found: LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared #Cancer)
Canada and the US are basically almost equal as far as cancer is concerned. Which furthers your point that healthcare systems actually don't really enter the equation.

[Supergirl]

Anyone else see Jon Stewart last night? The conservative editor from the Weekly Standard was on and he got totally tongue-tied. He said -- repeatedly -- that veterans deserve better medical care than other citizens, and that their (government subsidized) medical care is the best in the country. Then he went on to make the usual conservative claim that the government can't provide decent health care.

It was so classic. Conservatives are so rigid in their thinking they can only repeat certain tag lines, even when those tag lines contradict one another.

As for complete refutation of these points, let me point people again to this link which was posted earlier: http://comments.realclearpolitics.com/read/1/396232.html

All your questions about why the article in the OP is so asinine will be answered, if your minds are open enough to listen.

[Wild Cobra]

The United States has highest overall cancer survival rate among world nations. Canada and Japan also do very well, with the rest of Europe behind them.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18639491

I believe that to be fact, but did you link the right page? I read:
North America, Australia, Japan, and northern, western, and southern EuropeReferring to the beast survival rates, and not breaking it down. I didn't see the article as putting them in order of merit.

To be fair, I also looked for the data and didn't find it. I do believe we have the best system, especially since our citizens don't have a waiting line to die in. Perhaps we have fewer who are diagnosed, and get treated too lat, but what's awful is to be diagnosed, and have to wait, and get worse to the point treatment is not effective!

What a way to go... Knowing and having no control...

[Wild Cobra]

Here's another source I found: LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared #Cancer)
Canada and the US are basically almost equal as far as cancer is concerned. Which furthers your point that healthcare systems actually don't really enter the equation.
OK, so the survival rate is about 6% better in the USA than in Canada.


wiki: All cancers, mortality rate

women:

42.8% Canada
39.8% USA

men:

47.2% Canada
43.2% USA

That gives women a 5.2% better survival rates in the USA, and men 7.6%.

Please note that the earlier studies showed the USA and Canada closer to equal, but the later ones show a clear lead in the USA or survival rates.

[Wild Cobra]

ElNoni, the wiki link also says this, which is very important to me:
This study rated the US "responsiveness", or quality of service for individuals receiving treatment, as 1st, compared with 7th for Canada.How long are the waiting lines in Canada?

[ElNono]

ElNoni, the wiki link also says this, which is very important to me:How long are the waiting lines in Canada?

Obviously not long enough considering Canadians are pretty happy with their healthcare system (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/canadians-happy-with-primary-health-care-study-says/article1229169/)

Now, it's not a perfect system but (from the study):

More than 54 per cent of those surveyed required ongoing medical care within the past year. Of those, only 13 per cent experienced difficulties getting an appointment or contacting a doctor. Most were able to see a doctor within seven days.

Let's not pretend that the US system is not already rationed.

[Wild Cobra]

Obviously not long enough considering Canadians are pretty happy with their healthcare system (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/canadians-happy-with-primary-health-care-study-says/article1229169/)

Now, it's not a perfect system but (from the study):

More than 54 per cent of those surveyed required ongoing medical care within the past year. Of those, only 13 per cent experienced difficulties getting an appointment or contacting a doctor. Most were able to see a doctor within seven days.

Let's not pretend that the US system is not already rationed.
If it's important, I can walk in and see my doctor today. No appointment wait. May have to wait a few hours. I did that once. I called and asked if I could be seen, they told me to come in and expect to wait. My total visit was about an hour. They gave me a room, and came in and out between patients.

13% having difficulty with appointments? That's unheard of with private coverage. Now when you quote "ongoing medical care" I'll bet most those are simple blood tests for things like diabetes, hypothyroidism, etc. What about real issues that are no so common?

Now I can understand the desire to have better access for those not covered by insurance, or pay out of pocket, but any plan that does so and reduced my level of care is flat out wrong.

Lowest common denominator thinking is wrong. I do not want my quality of health care to be reduced because someone wants to suck on the government teat.

[ChumpDumper]

13% having difficulty with appointments? That's unheard of with private coverage.It is heard of.

[ElNono]

If it's important, I can walk in and see my doctor today. No appointment wait. May have to wait a few hours. I did that once. I called and asked if I could be seen, they told me to come in and expect to wait. My total visit was about an hour. They gave me a room, and came in and out between patients.

I'm glad you have good healtcare coverage. Unfortunately, you're not an average american (http://www.merritthawkins.com/pdf/mha2009waittimesurvey.pdf).


13% having difficulty with appointments? That's unheard of with private coverage. Now when you quote "ongoing medical care" I'll bet most those are simple blood tests for things like diabetes, hypothyroidism, etc. What about real issues that are no so common?

Not unheard of at all. Maybe you simply don't want to hear.


Now I can understand the desire to have better access for those not covered by insurance, or pay out of pocket, but any plan that does so and reduced my level of care is flat out wrong.


We know it's all about you.


Lowest common denominator thinking is wrong. I do not want my quality of health care to be reduced because someone wants to suck on the government teat.

I fail to see how your quality of care would vary, considering you can keep on purchasing from your same private insurer.

[101A]

I fail to see how your quality of care would vary, considering you can keep on purchasing from your same private insurer.


Your usually a straight shooter; parsing words doesn't suit you.

You made sure and didn't say, "keep your same plan"; because you realize plans are going to be forced to change; with sweeping legislation as proposed NOONE will keep the same coverage they have - despite being happy with it.

Your utilitarian arguments get to the heart of the disagreement here. Cobra likes what he has; wants to keep it; you see that inconveniencing him for the "greater good" is worthwhile.

Individual vs. Public.

He reads "Each person is endowed....inalienable rights in bold"

while your read "the general welfare" in bold.

...and the country seems very closely divided on this point - with a elative handful of swing voters who hold sway.

Even though, right now, Congress heavily leans Democrat; the presidential election gave only a 6 - 7% indicator of the country's sentiments last November; and no doubt that gap is even closer now. SO, even though the Democrats hold mighty sway, and can pass anything they want - the "Will" of the people probably is not a radical as what is being proposed.

The Senate compromise plan is probably the best compromise of what actual Americans, and not necessarily the actual congress as currently constructed, would come up with.

If we end up with something like that, and Obama signs it; I will readily admit that THAT was change; and it was different. Compromise, when, ultimately, you don't have to, would be change; and welcome change.

If the Dems, however, because of the numbers they have, force through something that a great many Americans don't wan't, simply because they currently have the numbers to do; well, that will be status-quo; and we'll probably end up with a backlash in 18 months that shifts power inordinately the other way; and on, and on.....

[Wild Cobra]

I'm glad you have good healtcare coverage. Unfortunately, you're not an average american (http://www.merritthawkins.com/pdf/mha2009waittimesurvey.pdf).
Have a relavant study:
The 2009 Survey of Physician Appointment Wait Times was conducted to determine the average time new patients must wait before they can see a physician in a variety of large metropolitan markets. The survey also examines the percentage of physicians willing or able to schedule Medicaid patients.

We know it's all about you.I have studied hard for years to get where I am at. It is flat out wrong to socialize something that is part of the formula for how I decided who to apply for work with. I earned the privilege of the things I have. To socialize medicine takes rights away from me, and others who have earned it.

I'd say it's all about you. Wanting to take something away from me that you didn't earn. The quality of my health care will suffer if we socialize medicine. That's just not right. You want to make us all the same. We are not all the same. Take away all the things that someone works hard for by giving those who don't work for it the same thing, and you destroy the incentives that made this nation great.

I fail to see how your quality of care would vary, considering you can keep on purchasing from your same private insurer.
That's not necessarily true. In fact, it's very unlikely. If you look at the proposed plan, it makes it hard to keep private health care. It's a path to erode the free market system and put all health care decisions in the hands of the DC Elite.

[ElNono]

Have a relavant study

What's irrelevant about the study? That it ALSO tracks who accepts medicaid doesn't make it irrelevant. If you have any better study supporting your zero day contention, by all means I'd love to see it.



I have studied hard for years to get where I am at. It is flat out wrong to socialize something that is part of the formula for how I decided who to apply for work with. I earned the privilege of the things I have. To socialize medicine takes rights away from me, and others who have earned it.


What rights to do you lose? I assume those are constitutional rights you're talking about?



I'd say it's all about you. Wanting to take something away from me that you didn't earn. The quality of my health care will suffer if we socialize medicine. That's just not right. You want to make us all the same. We are not all the same. Take away all the things that someone works hard for by giving those who don't work for it the same thing, and you destroy the incentives that made this nation great.

How so? You claim it but you don't back it up. Let's hear it.


That's not necessarily true. In fact, it's very unlikely. If you look at the proposed plan, it makes it hard to keep private health care. It's a path to erode the free market system and put all health care decisions in the hands of the DC Elite.

Myth. Can you prove otherwise?

[Wild Cobra]

What's irrelevant about the study? That it ALSO tracks who accepts medicaid doesn't make it irrelevant. If you have any better study supporting your zero day contention, by all means I'd love to see it.I'm not going to look. My point about relevancy is that it looked at first time patients. Established patience don't have a hard time making appointments in most cases.

Look, we discussed the 13% in Canada waiting a week or more for an appointment. I said that's unheard of here, referring to established patient/provider. You then bring up a FIRST TIME reference.

It had absolutely no relevance to the flow of the debate. I am an established patient. Not a first time. The 13% in Canada also dod not say FIRST TIME.

You are comparing Apples with Oranges.

What rights to do you lose? I assume those are constitutional rights you're talking about?Probably the right of Freedom of Association. The right to benefit from the fruits of my labor. I could come up with more I bet if I looked.

How so? You claim it but you don't back it up. Let's hear it.It changes the competitive angles of the equation. I've heard some in depth discussion on the subject, and believe it. I'm not going to look for it now. You should know, businesses cannot compete with government. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be running a business.

Myth. Can you prove otherwise?
I'll bet I could, but I have better things to do.

[DarrinS]

Is There a ‘Right’ to Health Care? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306170677645070.html)

In Britain, its recognition has led to substandard care.




If there is a right to health care, someone has the duty to provide it. Inevitably, that “someone” is the government. Concrete benefits in pursuance of abstract rights, however, can be provided by the government only by constant coercion.

People sometimes argue in favor of a universal human right to health care by saying that health care is different from all other human goods or products. It is supposedly an important precondition of life itself. This is wrong: There are several other, much more important preconditions of human existence, such as food, shelter and clothing.

Everyone agrees that hunger is a bad thing (as is overeating), but few suppose there is a right to a healthy, balanced diet, or that if there was, the federal government would be the best at providing and distributing it to each and every American.

Where does the right to health care come from? Did it exist in, say, 250 B.C., or in A.D. 1750? If it did, how was it that our ancestors, who were no less intelligent than we, failed completely to notice it?

If, on the other hand, the right to health care did not exist in those benighted days, how did it come into existence, and how did we come to recognize it once it did?

When the supposed right to health care is widely recognized, as in the United Kingdom, it tends to reduce moral imagination. Whenever I deny the existence of a right to health care to a Briton who asserts it, he replies, “So you think it is all right for people to be left to die in the street?”

When I then ask my interlocutor whether he can think of any reason why people should not be left to die in the street, other than that they have a right to health care, he is generally reduced to silence. He cannot think of one.

Moreover, the right to grant is also the right to deny. And in times of economic stringency, when the first call on public expenditure is the payment of the salaries and pensions of health-care staff, we can rely with absolute confidence on the capacity of government sophists to find good reasons for doing bad things.

The question of health care is not one of rights but of how best in practice to organize it. America is certainly not a perfect model in this regard. But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world.

Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world. Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so.

The government-run health-care system—which in the U.K. is believed to be the necessary institutional corollary to an inalienable right to health care—has pauperized the entire population. This is not to say that in every last case the treatment is bad: A pauper may be well or badly treated, according to the inclination, temperament and abilities of those providing the treatment. But a pauper must accept what he is given.

Universality is closely allied as an ideal, ideologically, to that of equality. But equality is not desirable in itself. To provide everyone with the same bad quality of care would satisfy the demand for equality. (Not coincidentally, British survival rates for cancer and heart disease are much below those of other European countries, where patients need to make at least some payment for their care.)

In any case, the universality of government health care in pursuance of the abstract right to it in Britain has not ensured equality. After 60 years of universal health care, free at the point of usage and funded by taxation, inequalities between the richest and poorest sections of the population have not been reduced. But Britain does have the dirtiest, most broken-down hospitals in Europe.

There is no right to health care—any more than there is a right to chicken Kiev every second Thursday of the month.

[ChumpDumper]

Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so.So they prefer the Greek national health care system to the British national heath care system.

Ok.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Have a relavant study:
I have studied hard for years to get where I am at. It is flat out wrong to socialize something that is part of the formula for how I decided who to apply for work with. I earned the privilege of the things I have. To socialize medicine takes rights away from me, and others who have earned it.

I'd say it's all about you. Wanting to take something away from me that you didn't earn. The quality of my health care will suffer if we socialize medicine. That's just not right. You want to make us all the same. We are not all the same. Take away all the things that someone works hard for by giving those who don't work for it the same thing, and you destroy the incentives that made this nation great.
That's not necessarily true. In fact, it's very unlikely. If you look at the proposed plan, it makes it hard to keep private health care. It's a path to erode the free market system and put all health care decisions in the hands of the DC Elite.

There are many people who have worked hard and did the right things yet still suffer from bad luck. I guess you'll just say those are the breaks.. I got mine! Woohoo!

[ElNono]

I'm not going to look.

Of course you won't. :lol


Probably the right of Freedom of Association. The right to benefit from the fruits of my labor. I could come up with more I bet if I looked.

How does public healthcare denies your Freedom of Association right?
And please, if you have more, bring them up... this is hilarious.


It changes the competitive angles of the equation. I've heard some in depth discussion on the subject, and believe it.


You always hear all these things, and believe them too. I have no doubt you you do. Shame you can't really prove any of them.


I'm not going to look for it now.

Maybe later?


You should know, businesses cannot compete with government. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be running a business.

Right, like Fedex, UPS or private schools... I bet they're about to bankrupt... [/sarcasm]


I'll bet I could, but I have better things to do.

Sure you do... :rolleyes

[101A]

So they prefer the Greek national health care system to the British national heath care system.

Ok.


But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world.
Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world.

[ChumpDumper]

So it's better in Greece because universal health care has been available for a shorter time?

Hilarious.

By your logic, the US will have undoubtedly the best government health care in the world if it comes to pass.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not going to look. Of course you won't. :lol
Why should I bother when you cannot keep things relevant? I have learned over time what sources to trust and not trust. Much of what I hear is in the radio. Yes, I can find the information when I need to. It doesn't matter, no matter how many facts I find, you will keep a closed mind.

[Marcus Bryant]

So it's better in Greece because universal health care has been available for a shorter time?

Hilarious.

By your logic, the US will have undoubtedly the best government health care in the world if it comes to pass.

His logic is that eventually it will suck hard.

[cool cat]

It is heard of.

Link?

[101A]

So it's better in Greece because universal health care has been available for a shorter time?

Hilarious.

By your logic, the US will have undoubtedly the best government health care in the world if it comes to pass.

Government healthcare is bad.

The longer a govt. does it; the worse it gets.

Ergo, the govt. that has done it the longest, does it the worst.

By the author's logic, Britains healthcare will alway be the worst; and everybody elses will be playing catchup (and all getting worse that they were with every passing moment).

[RandomGuy]

13% having difficulty with appointments? That's unheard of with private coverage.

Please provide statistics that support the thesis that private care appointment difficulty is less than this.

















Nothing?

That would make this statistic #21,276 that you have pulled out of your ass this year.

I call bullshit. Support your statement or withdraw it.

[Supergirl]

A really excellent article on the current health care struggle here:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/08/03/090803taco_talk_hertzberg?yrail

[RandomGuy]

13% having difficulty with appointments? That's unheard of with private coverage.

You mean like a woman diagnosed with extremely agressive breast cancer forced to wait a month after her scheduled mastectomy surgery was canceled by her insurer so they could review her case, allowing the tumor to double in size?

I mean, no private insurer would EVER try something as nasty as recission (http://www.alliedquotes.com/Insider/2009/06/health-insurance-companies-and.html) of a contract on the flimsiest of excuses so as not to live up to their end of the contract and pay out money owed to policyholders.

The private market is too efficient for profit motive insurers to leave policyholders in the lerch when they try to collect on their policies.

[Wild Cobra]

You mean like a woman diagnosed with extremely agressive breast cancer forced to wait a month after her scheduled mastectomy surgery was canceled by her insurer so they could review her case, allowing the tumor to double in size?

I mean, no private insurer would EVER try something as nasty as recission (http://www.alliedquotes.com/Insider/2009/06/health-insurance-companies-and.html) of a contract on the flimsiest of excuses so as not to live up to their end of the contract and pay out money owed to policyholders.

The private market is too efficient for profit motive insurers to leave policyholders in the lerch when they try to collect on their policies.
I was talking about making an appointment with a doctor. Like normal, you are trying to change the argument.