The local “conservatives” like to argue from extremes. By their logic, I could accuse them of wanting to shut down Social Security, re-institute child labor, and the establish the divine right of Kings (or Commanders-In-Chief). I would be pleased if we had a single-payer health care system similar to Canada’s, and I don’t think Canadians are arguing for state ownership of all businesses or a dictatorship of the proletariat.
But this is really the only tactic they have. They can’t defend the current lame system on its own merits, so they wave their economic witch-doctor staffs and shout Communism! Communism! Communism! to ward of any evil spirit of reform. As the misery and inefficiency of the current system worsen, it will be the US business community that will end up as the most powerful advocate of national health care - to remove the competitive burden of subsidizing private health insurance. Then the PowerLine zealots will have the curious task of denouncing American CEOs as “Communists.”
Hey, when I read something right out of the little Red Book, I take note of it.
Re: “defending the current lame system”
We are rather making a specific defense. You are the one who is responding with general statements of doom and gloom, accusation and hyperbole. You have basically not responded to any of the specific defenses here, except to repeat your rants that a) America is bad, and b) the rich are out to screw the poor.
Lets assume that this is your basic orientation, shall we? And then you don’t have to repeat it every post. Then you might actually get around to defending your propositions, which we have generally destroyed.
And now I see that you are a prophet, as you draw back the curtains of time and reveal to us what will be in the future! I had no idea that we were in the presence of such an august personage....
The local “conservatives” like to argue from extremes. By their logic, I could accuse them of wanting to shut down Social Security, re-institute child labor, and the establish the divine right of Kings (or Commanders-In-Chief). I would be pleased if we had a single-payer health care system similar to Canada’s, and I don’t think Canadians are arguing for state ownership of all businesses or a dictatorship of the proletariat.
But this is really the only tactic they have. They can’t defend the current lame system on its own merits, so they wave their economic witch-doctor staffs and shout Communism! Communism! Communism! to ward of any evil spirit of reform. As the misery and inefficiency of the current system worsen, it will be the US business community that will end up as the most powerful advocate of national health care - to remove the competitive burden of subsidizing private health insurance. Then the PowerLine zealots will have the curious task of denouncing American CEOs as “Communists.”
In your last post, I saw you dress down a sick person, because he was not aware of obligations to his class with a bunch of warmed-over Marxist platitudes lifted straight from Frank if not Marx himself. So, please spare us the BS.
I have yet to see any evidence from you that you have even the faintest idea of what you are proposing, let alone, a reasoned argument why we should go to a single-payer plan.
Your “What’s The Matter With People Like Randoobula?” thesis has already been tried ad infinitum, as in this just-in-time-for-the-2004-election “gem” by Thomas Frank:
Do at least try to be original, would you? That way, you won’t hit the diminishing returns part of your “entertainment value” curve quite so fast.
Here’s an excerpt from an article by Thomas Sowell (a self-hating “oreo cookie\”, as far as “Meliorist”, “impeachbush”, and such ilk are concerned) that speaks your “language”:
...
When a copy of the 50th anniversary report on members of the Harvard class of 1958 arrived in the mail recently, I thought back to one of my fellow students in that class who had worn a hole in the sole of his shoe but put a folded piece of newspaper in his shoe to cover the hole, rather than tell his parents.
He realized that they would buy him a new pair of shoes if they knew— and he also realized that they could not afford it.
He went on to become a professor at several well-known medical schools and to have various achievements and honors over the years.
From even further back in time, I received a letter recently from a man who grew up in my old neighborhood back in Harlem. When he and I were in the same junior high school, one day a teacher who saw him eating his brown bag lunch suddenly arranged for him to get a lunch from the school cafeteria without having to pay for it.
It happened so fast that my schoolmate had already taken a bite from the school lunch when he suddenly realized that he had been given charity— and he wouldn’t swallow the food. Instead he went to the toilet and spat it out.
By now his brown bag lunch had been thrown out, so he just went hungry that day. He went on to become a very successful psychiatrist.
...
Then you might actually get around to defending your propositions, which we have generally destroyed.
I have never seen a bunch of buffoons so eager to high-five each other when exchanging fallacies. Here is how you and your primitive pals have “destroyed” the arguments for reforming our health care system.
1. The quality of US health care is deteriorating according to statistical measures.
PL response: We don’t accept any statistics that support critics. As long as one rich guy can afford any medical procedure, America has the best health care in the world
2. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are forced into bankruptcy each year because of ruinous health care expenses.
PL response: Bankruptcy is a good thing, and more efficient than a national health care system. People really like filing for bankruptcy.
3. Many Americans with serious chronic ailments cannot afford private health insurance.
PL response: They could afford health insurance if they worked harder, or got more education, or won the lottery. Otherwise, they should go to an emergency room or a free clinic that will give them pain killers.
4. Many advanced nations have efficient and popular national health care systems.
PL response: these nations are all slowly being destroyed from within by creeping socialism, which will lead to totalitarian Communism, which will lead to slave labor and death camps.
You get the idea. This is what passes for “debate” on PowerLine. Suggest a national health care system for America, and you will be denounced as a “Communist.”
Please provide the statistical supporting propositions 1 and 2 above. Please don’t wast my time with anything from the Guardian, DailyKos, or another liberal rag. I’m especially curious about the documentation for proposition 2.
I wonder why mealy-mouth never responded to this exchange?
IronDioPriest - 12 May 2008 06:03 PM
You say,
Meliorist - 12 May 2008 02:13 PM
I believe that actions should have consequences. For example, if the child of a rich person abuses drugs and requires medical attention, that child should not enjoy privileged, high-quality health care for making bad lifestyle choices. The wealth of his or her parent should not insulate that person from the consequences of irresponsible behavior. Similarly, when a rich kid gets in trouble with the law, the wealth of his or her parents should not shield that offender from the fair exercise of justice. The hard work of the parent does not logically entitle the child to a free ride in life.
Fine. A valid position that promotes misguided social justice, IF, your motivation is pure, which you have displayed it is not. But assuming it is, what do you say regarding the person who has sacrificed for years, working their ass off, doing what it takes to claw their way to prosperity, and who lives a clean life, making wise personal lifestyle choices?
Should that person be able to enjoy high-quality medical care as a fruit of their labor? Should the money they earn as a result of their commitment to personal excellence be able to purchase them the best medical care they can afford? Or should that person just suck it up and live with the fact that no matter how hard they work, no matter how committed they are to being a productive member of society, there is an arbitrary ceiling, set by beaurocrats, that limits the care he receives to the same care purchased with taxpayer dollars according to government mandate.
Based on your MO, I will assume that you believe the latter - that all people are subject to the level of care provided by a taxpayer funded system, and that this person committed to personal drive, ambition, and excellence is not entitled to purchase anything for himself that exceeds what is available to the least fortunate Americans.
Then, I will ask, if a person of drive who is committed to personal excellence cannot reap rewards commensurate with their contribution to productive society; if he cannot purchase for himself the highest quality of whatever product or service he can afford; what will drive him to continue to pursue excellence in his field of occupation? If he works and toils and propels himself forward in life, and he can only gain for himself what a homeless drug addict gets from the government, AND the government confiscates his earnings to pay for that homeless drug addict, why should he continue to work his ass off? What happens to productiveness in society?
I would appreciate specific, direct answers. If you fail to provide them, I will place you on ignore from this point forward, and refuse to entertain you as anything more than a stoned brat in your mother’s basement.
Should that person be able to enjoy high-quality medical care as a fruit of their labor? Should the money they earn as a result of their commitment to personal excellence be able to purchase them the best medical care they can afford? Or should that person just suck it up and live with the fact that no matter how hard they work, no matter how committed they are to being a productive member of society, there is an arbitrary ceiling, set by beaurocrats, that limits the care he receives to the same care purchased with taxpayer dollars according to government mandate.
By what logic are the affluent prevented from buying private health care in a national health care system? Even if a system were so restrictive as to prohibit such private care, and I am unaware of any that do, the wealthy patient could always travel to a place where world-class care is available.
Ahhh. So you cede that under such a government run system, restrictive or not, private “world-class” health care, to use your words, would be available elsewhere; not within the government run system. If the government were to restrict the wealthy from purchasing “world-calss” care here at home, then the affluent could “travel” to locations where that “world-class” care was available. I get it.
Mideastern Arab billionaires have been flying to Europe for medical care for decades, and European countries generally have nationalized health care.
Proximity matters. Mideastern Arab billionaires come to the United States, when it really matters. The Mayo Clinic is a primary destination. Yassir Arafat spent much time here, in Rochester Minnesota.
Many Americans would likely supplement the benefits of a national health care system with private supplemental care, particularly for elective or cosmetic procedures not covered or not delivered by a preferred practitioner.
Particularly, or exclusively? If not exclusively, what would the impetus be for one to “step outside” the system and supplement it with private supplemental care?
Right now, my HMO denies me many choices. If I go outside the list of plan doctors, I must pay much more. Does that mean our splendid private system is limiting my choices? I have the choice of other doctors if I can afford them. A national health care systems would give Americans the same choice, while protecting them from ruinous medical disasters.
“Right now”, you are free to find a diffferent HMO. “Right now”, a private company is limiting choices based on economic considerations, as perverted by government regulation. If you are unhappy with those choices, you can seek a remedy in the marketplace. You can make a grievance to an employer who may not be in a position to immediately rectify the situation, but who understands the realities of dissatisfied employees. “Right now”, the market is attempting to find solutions to the problem of uninsured citizens, and is being hindered by government regulation.
In your Utopia, the federal government would be the sole arbiter of available choices within the system. Decisions would be made for your health-care based on acts of congress - a body that runs this country fiscally in a manner that any private business using the same tactics would not survive. The same beaurocracy that pollutes the IRS, HUD, and the Departrment of Homeland Security would be in charge of your health care.
Should that person be able to enjoy high-quality medical care as a fruit of their labor? Should the money they earn as a result of their commitment to personal excellence be able to purchase them the best medical care they can afford? Or should that person just suck it up and live with the fact that no matter how hard they work, no matter how committed they are to being a productive member of society, there is an arbitrary ceiling, set by beaurocrats, that limits the care he receives to the same care purchased with taxpayer dollars according to government mandate.
By what logic are the affluent prevented from buying private health care in a national health care system? Even if a system were so restrictive as to prohibit such private care, and I am unaware of any that do, the wealthy patient could always travel to a place where world-class care is available. Mideastern Arab billionaires have been flying to Europe for medical care for decades, and European countries generally have nationalized health care.
Many Americans would likely supplement the benefits of a national health care system with private supplemental care, particularly for elective or cosmetic procedures not covered or not delivered by a preferred practitioner. Right now, my HMO denies me many choices. If I go outside the list of plan doctors, I must pay much more. Does that mean our splendid private system is limiting my choices? I have the choice of other doctors if I can afford them. A national health care systems would give Americans the same choice, while protecting them from ruinous medical disasters.
This is actually the definition of single-payer health plans. I can give you 3 examples: Denmark, Sweden , and Canada.
Please explain the economics of how having a single-payer plan would give Americans the same quality of care and choice they have now. What market defects does the government intervention cure?
I have worked in healthcare finance for thirty years. It is my contention that much of the struggle that hospitals face is the direct result of government meddling. Medicare and Medicaid are dysfunctional. They distort the market and routinely engage in wag the dog actions that drive up cost and reduce quality. States have insurance commissioners who’s role is the regulation of the industry. This approach has failed miserably everywhere. More government involvement will NOT improve healthcare.
Why not make American health care a free-fire zone for capitalism? The periodic excesses will be corrected, and the unfortunate victims can be ignored. You can get rid of the FDA while you are at it, and remove all the drug laws as well. The model of unregulated medical care you imagine is a bizarre fantasy that exists nowhere in the world, with the possible exception of Somalia and a few other failed states. But why not come right out and advocate it? Tell us how the magic of the free market would work.
You are doing a great job here mellorist. These people have been so brainwashed, that when someone with rationale arguments comes along the response is often name calling and some unknown fear that like global warming health care is a plot by the far left to put the money and power into the hands of the govt. Their paranoia is bizarre.
I have worked in healthcare finance for thirty years. It is my contention that much of the struggle that hospitals face is the direct result of government meddling. Medicare and Medicaid are dysfunctional. They distort the market and routinely engage in wag the dog actions that drive up cost and reduce quality. States have insurance commissioners who’s role is the regulation of the industry. This approach has failed miserably everywhere. More government involvement will NOT improve healthcare.
Why not make American health care a free-fire zone for capitalism? The periodic excesses will be corrected, and the unfortunate victims can be ignored. You can get rid of the FDA while you are at it, and remove all the drug laws as well. The model of unregulated medical care you imagine is a bizarre fantasy that exists nowhere in the world, with the possible exception of Somalia and a few other failed states. But why not come right out and advocate it? Tell us how the magic of the free market would work.
You are doing a great job here mellorist. These people have been so brainwashed, that when someone with rationale arguments comes along the response is often name calling and some unknown fear that like global warming health care is a plot by the far left to put the money and power into the hands of the govt. Their paranoia is bizarre.
Who’s talking about nefarious plots? I just don’t want to have to wait 6 months to see a doctor when I get sick, especially when I’m already paying for it.
Haven’t you ever been to the DMV? Do you like waiting in line? How about waiting in line when you are sick? What if it’s someone you love?
I just don’t want to have to wait 6 months to see a doctor when I get sick, especially when I’m already paying for it.
Where do you get these bizarre assumptions? Do you have any proof that Canadians wait “6 months” to see a doctor? All you have are anecdotes of relatively rare instances of waits for non-critical procedures. Meanwhile, you ignore completely the under-treatment of the uninsured, which slowly results in a mountain of acute care requirements when serious illness results from years of neglect of treatable conditions.
All you have are anecdotes. You don’t even have your facts straight: Earlier you said that you favored a “single-payer” system, but a couple of posts later, you don’t even seem to know what the term means. BTW--waiting a year for a hip replacement, as the fellow in the story I linked to in the above story, can’t be fun. He paid his taxes--why didn’t he get his treatment? Why did he have to go to court for the opportunity to pay for the same treatment twice?
I asked about 3 or 4 questions earlier, you have yet to answer any of them. And for the record, I haven’t ignored anything; I’m just waiting to see one substantive remark from you that is backed with evidence. I’m starting to think that it’s not going to happen.
Should that person be able to enjoy high-quality medical care as a fruit of their labor? Should the money they earn as a result of their commitment to personal excellence be able to purchase them the best medical care they can afford? Or should that person just suck it up and live with the fact that no matter how hard they work, no matter how committed they are to being a productive member of society, there is an arbitrary ceiling, set by beaurocrats, that limits the care he receives to the same care purchased with taxpayer dollars according to government mandate.
By what logic are the affluent prevented from buying private health care in a national health care system? Even if a system were so restrictive as to prohibit such private care, and I am unaware of any that do, the wealthy patient could always travel to a place where world-class care is available.
Ahhh. So you cede that under such a government run system, restrictive or not, private “world-class” health care, to use your words, would be available elsewhere; not within the government run system. If the government were to restrict the wealthy from purchasing “world-calss” care here at home, then the affluent could “travel” to locations where that “world-class” care was available. I get it.
Mideastern Arab billionaires have been flying to Europe for medical care for decades, and European countries generally have nationalized health care.
Proximity matters. Mideastern Arab billionaires come to the United States, when it really matters. The Mayo Clinic is a primary destination. Yassir Arafat spent much time here, in Rochester Minnesota.
Many Americans would likely supplement the benefits of a national health care system with private supplemental care, particularly for elective or cosmetic procedures not covered or not delivered by a preferred practitioner.
Particularly, or exclusively? If not exclusively, what would the impetus be for one to “step outside” the system and supplement it with private supplemental care?
Right now, my HMO denies me many choices. If I go outside the list of plan doctors, I must pay much more. Does that mean our splendid private system is limiting my choices? I have the choice of other doctors if I can afford them. A national health care systems would give Americans the same choice, while protecting them from ruinous medical disasters.
“Right now”, you are free to find a diffferent HMO. “Right now”, a private company is limiting choices based on economic considerations, as perverted by government regulation. If you are unhappy with those choices, you can seek a remedy in the marketplace. You can make a grievance to an employer who may not be in a position to immediately rectify the situation, but who understands the realities of dissatisfied employees. “Right now”, the market is attempting to find solutions to the problem of uninsured citizens, and is being hindered by government regulation.
In your Utopia, the federal government would be the sole arbiter of available choices within the system. Decisions would be made for your health-care based on acts of congress - a body that runs this country fiscally in a manner that any private business using the same tactics would not survive. The same beaurocracy that pollutes the IRS, HUD, and the Departrment of Homeland Security would be in charge of your health care.
1. The quality of US health care is deteriorating according to statistical measures.
2. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are forced into bankruptcy each year because of ruinous health care expenses.
Please provide the statistical supporting propositions 1 and 2 above. Please don’t wast my time with anything from the Guardian, DailyKos, or another liberal rag. I’m especially curious about the documentation for proposition 2.
1. Statistics on declining US health care:
More moms dying from childbirth
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Sunday, August 26th 2007, 4:00 AM
ATLANTA - U.S. women are dying from childbirth at the highest rate in decades, new government figures show.
Though the risk of death is very small, experts believe increasing maternal obesity and a jump in Caesarean sections are partly to blame.
Some number crunchers note that a change in how such deaths are reported also may be a factor.
“Those of us who look at this a lot say it’s probably a little bit of both,” said Dr. Jeffrey King, an obstetrician who led a recent New York State review of maternal deaths.
The U.S. maternal mortality rate rose to 13 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2004, according to statistics released this week by the National Center for Health Statistics.
The rate was 12 per 100,000 live births in 2003 - the first time the maternal death rate rose above 10 since 1977.
To be sure, death from childbirth remains fairly rare in the United States. The death of infants is much more common - the nation’s infant mortality rate was 679 per 100,000 live births in 2004.
Life expectancy has long been growing steadily for most Americans. But it has not for a significant minority, according to a new study, which finds a growing disparity in mortality depending on race, income and geography.
The study, published Monday in the online journal PLoS, analyzed life expectancy in all 3,141 counties in the United States from 1961 to 1999, the latest y
. . .
Okay, thanks. I won’t be able to look over the Himmelstein article until next weekend. I want to take a look at their data and methods, and I just don’t have the time right now. I’ll concede the point for now.
I’m not willing to take the life expectancy story at face value either. I’m going to need a few days to look under the hood, and see how they got their numbers.
With respect to the infant and maternal mortality rates, there are lots of reasons, unrelated to insurance status, why it may be increasing. For example, advances in fertility treatments and increased ages for women giving birth lead to higher-risk pregnancies and more sickly babies being delivered. Evidence of an absolute increase can be quite misleading without considering these other crucial factors, and how they condition the probability distribution.
******, but then I realized that you and millions of others are preventing enlightened social policies from being enacted in America.
Isn’t “enlightened social policies” an oxymoron? Show me ONE government run social program that even comes close to it’s intended social effect. If a dime of every tax payer dollar went to someone who deserves and needs it we could START calling it a success.
You are a perfect example of people so blinded by the quack medicine of right-wing propaganda that you vote against your own interests.
You havent a clue where Im coming from. Most of my views were formed long before I even bothered to read a newspaper. As I began to have the time in my busy life to pay attention, I realized who it was whose positions were based on principle and whose were based on feel-good fluff and vote pandering. I have NEVER registered with or voted for a party. I have endeavored to support individuals under whom I saw a firm foundation for principled leadership. Slim pickens most of the time.
And I dont think necessarily of my own interests. In this country, I am given the freedom and liberty to look after my own best interests. When I vote, it is about the best interst of the country, State, or community in general. What is best for all to protect our way of life so that it is still there for my kids and their kids. You people are so arrogant to think you know better than the generations that have gone before. Yes, times change and we must evolve, but the greatest nation in the history of the world didnt get there by accident. Liberalism has done nothing but fight to change or remove the very foundation upon which our way of life was built.
There is no evidence whatsoever that national health care programs make people lazy and unproductive. Some of the most efficient and competitive countries in the world have excellent national health care systems, including Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland. This is just your ignorance talking.
First, you call me ignorant for saying something I did not say. So, Ill help you out and say that although, by itself, national health care wont make people lazy, it’s a part of a movement toward increasingly more socialistic programs and policies, which combined will all encourage and reward laziness. There may be no direct evidence of this other than common sense, but in looking at a great many other social welfare programs, it’s obvious at least to me that they produce dependence, NOT independence and that fraud and abuse are norms.
What you advocate is really a casino system, in which those lucky enough not to have both a low income and a catastrophic illness are the winners, and those unlucky enough to be poor and sick are the losers.
Luck has very little to do with one’s income level. I do agree that to a certain degree, health is a crap shoot and the healthy are winners. People who are truly poor, not just because they dont have or make much money, but who are born into poverty without the benefit of positive family values and role models to impart a sense of confidence so that they can believe in themselves enough to make a go of the American Dream, DO exist. Communities need to take care of their own. If they cant, then states need to support the communities. The Feds can help the states if they need it. But, WE THE PEOPLE are the ones failing each other. And those who put the responsibility on the Federal Government to run our lives are the most lazy and irresponsible of all.
Although dozens of nations have shown that this system of needless suffering can be avoided, you seem to believe that it is mandated by a law of nature.
No, suffering just is. There will always be suffering. We just differ on whose responsibility it is to address it.
For you to say that you would rather crawl away to a hillside and die than receive government aid that would save your life indicates that mental illness is part of your debility.
F*c* you! The worst thing that could ever happen to me would be my health deteriorate to the point that I am a burden to my family or kids. Taken a bit further, along with the rights and freedoms this country offered me, comes the responsibility to use all that God gave me to take care of me and mine. I have failed in a number of ways and I may just have to pay the price. BUt, for my fellow Americans, you included, to have to pick up my slack or pay for my bad “luck”, is unthinkable.
Needless suffering is not a badge of courage or honor;
What I’m talking about is self-respect. Call it what you want, but I tend to believe that what goes around comes around. Im not saying that I deserve to suffer. What Im saying is that if that is what is to be, and I havent accounted for it, Im screwed. ME. Not you. You need to be ensuring that you ARE covered, not paying for MY mistakes.
it is a sign of stupidity. When next you have the opportunity, vote to defend your own interests, not those of the people who view you as debris to be swept out of their path.
The only ones who view me as debris to be swept out of their path are the morons who I will not vote for. Thats what they are about. You are the one thats deceived.
You have been victimized in the cruelest way possible. You have been taught to inflict suffering on yourself for the convenience of those who manipulate you. Moreover, you have been taught to spread that suffering to others.
Ive been taught to take responsibility for myself. Ive been taught that the bed I make, I must sleep in. Ive been taught to be grateful for what I DO have and not gripe about what I dont. Ive been taught to love my neighbor and give him a hand when he needs it. Ive been taught the Golden Rule
I just don’t want to have to wait 6 months to see a doctor when I get sick, especially when I’m already paying for it.
Where do you get these bizarre assumptions? Do you have any proof that Canadians wait “6 months” to see a doctor? All you have are anecdotes of relatively rare instances of waits for non-critical procedures. Meanwhile, you ignore completely the under-treatment of the uninsured, which slowly results in a mountain of acute care requirements when serious illness results from years of neglect of treatable conditions.
How many times do we have to post the statistics, Mellie? I personally posted, for your benefit, the statistics on waits for cholecystectomy, a very common procedure, and discussed the effects of waiting for the cholecystectomy.
You studiously ignored the post completely. No response to it at all. It was not anecdotal, it was based upon a Canadian study. You accuse us of supporting our position on anecdotal evidence, however, you refuse to even read or comment on real, documented evidence of what we are saying.
Mellie, your modus operandi is not about discussion. It is about rants. Which just makes you look stupid.
