Will the Obama Supporters please answer this?
- Posted by Chris on June 23rd, 2008 filed in Barack Obama, General, Politics
From the Rott, we get this heart warming story. Apparently, a woman gets lung cancer. It goes into remission for 2 years and then comes back. Her doctor writes a script for a drug that will extend her life and slow the attack. The government run health care system says, “no, you can’t have that drug”. They will however, pay for doctor assisted suicide should she decide that she doesn’t want to burden the taxpayer system any more. So, where is she? England? Canada? Sweden? No, she’s in Oregon, USA. She has the Oregon Health Plan.
This wasn’t even a Barack or Hillary lite plan. It was for people who were uninsured. It has been plagued with cost overruns to the extent that now they have a lottery just for the privilege to join. Then the legislature is looking at cost cuts. I’m guessing that tax increases are next. No evidence to support that, but I’m sure the liberals will make that plank 1 when the time comes.
Country after country has tried and failed to get decent health coverage for everyone. States have tried and failed. Medicare and Medicaid are failures by any measure. The government run VA hospitals are failures.
So my question to the Obama supporters is this: Are you just too thick to realize that his attempt at socialized medicine would destroy the best medical system in the world? Or do you really think that he has some magic pixie dust he received from the fairies and ponies at his My Little Pony Crystal Rainbow Castle that will make THIS one different? That THIS TIME someone will come along with that magical idea that will make people not exploit the “free” system. That somehow, he will keep the crowded emergency rooms from collapsing under the weight of those people who would go to the hospital in the middle of the night for a stubbed toe since hey, it’s “free”. That somehow will he keep doctors practicing medicine after telling them that they have to cut their prices?
It has been tried over and over. It doesn’t work. When you offer something for free, people exploit it. They take full advantage. Costs explode. Benefits are cut. Taxes/fees are raised. The whole thing collapses. Those that caused the problem then point fingers and are never held to account. So answer me please, what makes Baracks (or Hillary’s for that matter) different? What will make it work?
I will point out that in the above story of this lady, the PRIVATE SECTOR DRUG COMPANY stepped in to help her. Showing once again, that there is NOTHING worthwhile that the private sector cannot handle better than a government boondoggle.
wxwzrd says:
They won’t answer it because they are too smug and arrogant. Or if they do answer, it will be along the lines of, “the right people haven’t been in charge yet.” In that respect, they are definitely be thick-headed. Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
sierrahome520 says:
Taxes and pixie dust is all this man has to offer. Well, that and a few magic beans.
John says:
“Or do you really think that he has some magic pixie dust he received from the fairies and ponies at his My Little Pony Crystal Rainbow Castle that will make THIS one different?”
Of course. Isn’t Obama magical? Can’t he….
unite us all? Turn conservatives liberal? Turn base metals into gold? Make pro-lifers think that abortion is just peachy keen? ;-)
But I should say don’t expect consistency from the Obama campaign. This is the man who claims we will sit down and talk with the president or Iran BUT he is too afraid to debate on Fox News. HA!
Brett says:
The question has no answer because they are to busy tingling to think. There is not a leftist/marxists/COMMUNIST anything that has ever worked. But its Change you can believe in.
Visiting Oregon Liberal says:
Hello, I’m a visiting Oregon liberal, and I stumbled on this post. Thought I’d tackle it paragraph by paragraph, if you don’t mind. I don’t want to be accused of avoiding your points, so I’ll try to cover each one completely.
Paragraph 1
I’m honestly glad that pharmaceutical company decided it would be good customer relations (and let’s be honest, good PR) to provide that lady with the drug, which has a chance of prolonging her life. But I also find it interesting that you decided not to delve into the details of the article, in which it’s laid out what criteria are used to determine which benefits to pay for, in exactly the same way private insurance companies do. The privately insured get denied coverage for life-saving or improving treatments all the time.
The solution isn’t to dismiss an otherwise largely successful program based on its preference for preventative care for children. The invisible hand of the free market won’t save the other Barbara Wagners who would be left without any insurance at all were the OHP dismantled.
Incidentally, your links to individual failures in the socialized healthcare systems of other countries border on the absurd. The Daily Mail link even makes it clear that right there in neighboring Scotland the drug David Hill needs is free. Re-read the article, and take another look at the tone; the Daily Mail is mocking England’s NIH for failing to provide the drug, which indicates an opinion that it should. The Daily Mail is not proposing that the NIH be dismantled for this failure, it is proposing that it be fixed.
Continued…
Visiting Oregon Liberal says:
Paragraph 2
This is, of course, a fundamental disagreement between liberals and conservatives. Taxes are necessary to pay for that which the free market can’t provide, or is otherwise incompetent at providing. Taxes pay for the FDIC insurance that covers your bank, they pay for the roads you drive on, the fire department that services your neighborhood, the police who defend your property, the infrastructure that takes sewage from your home, and so on. I believe we will have to agree to disagree on the merits of taxation, but I will say I’m proud to help pay for the services used by everyone in my community, rich and poor alike, and it fills me with both a sense of neighborliness and a sense of patriotism.
Continued…
Visiting Oregon Liberal says:
Paragraph 3
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Is it that since health care is difficult and expensive, we should stop trying? When has that ever stopped America from succeeding? We’re the richest and most powerful country in the world. I refuse to believe we can’t provide quality health care for every man, woman, and child here.
Visiting Oregon Liberal says:
Paragraph 4
I can’t help but chuckle over this one. I’ve been in several countries where health care is free, and the citizens who live there are continually astonished by the American conservative belief (and it is a belief; there’s no evidence supporting it) that medical care being free means people with stubbed toes in hospitals.
Let me list a few other things that are free or practically free:
* Tap water - And yet you don’t spend every waking minute rushing to the kitchen for a drink just because you can.
* Public restrooms - I can’t imagine anyone intentionally touring the public restrooms of any city just because they don’t have to pay to use them.
* Police services - Another taxpayer-supported service that people don’t go out of there way to use just because it’s available.
I could go on and on, but my point is, people don’t like to go to the hospital unless they need to. Making it free won’t change that. It will, however, change it so that the woman with a persistent, troubling cough will go in and get checked before it explodes into full-blown metastasized lung cancer, because she doesn’t have to weigh the cost of the early, preventative check-up. Please note, of course, that early detection and cure of cancer is a lot less expensive than the late-stage treatments.
Continued…
Visiting Oregon Liberal says:
Paragraph 5
According to the CIA world factbook, the life expectancy in Canada is 81.16 years, as opposed to the United States, where it is 78.14 years. Our infant mortality rates are higher, too.
By the same measures, we’re behind the UK and Sweden, too. Significantly behind Sweden on infant mortality statistics, by the way, and those are some of the best measures for health care quality.
We live in the best country in the world, but our medical system is not the best, and as Americans we need to take a tough look at ourselves and figure out why. We’re a melting pot, and we always have been, so why not take what demonstrably works in other countries?
Continued…
Visiting Oregon Liberal says:
Paragraph 6
There’s no magic bullet. No one claims universal health care will solve every problem with health care in the United States. Or if they do, they’re idiots. In the end, it comes to a question of funding. You have to pay enough to doctors for them to keep doctoring. You have to pay enough to drug companies to keep them producing drugs. You have to pay enough for staff to run the hospitals.
Right now, those funds are largely paid by private insurance companies that need to make profits to continue existing. That means that after they’ve paid your medical bills, they still need to come out ahead. A nationalized health care system has no such need. While it has different costs, such as those associated with internal regulation, it doesn’t need to make any money at all, so paying for it wouldn’t be nearly as expensive as paying for private insurance is.
What I’m describing is essentially turning health insurance into a utility. Sure, utilities break and they’re not always perfect, but they’re a lot better than the alternative.
And I must take issue with the premise of this paragraph, by the way. Demonstrably, in the countries I’ve listed their health care systems work. Again, I remind you that infant mortality is one of the best measures of the quality of care, and in both that and in life expectancy, those other countries have us beat. It’s time for us to step up to the plate and reclaim our rightful place at the top.
Visiting Oregon Liberal says:
So… Thoughts? Comments? I genuinely want to know your reactions. It’s healthy for both sides to cross over and talk to each other.
USAPROUD says:
NOW WHO IS THE RACIST???? CHECK OUT THE VIDEO
http://obamacom.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-quotes-two-worlds-of-obama_5320.html
F.T. Republicans says:
Typical right wing attack. They make some horrible story and claim that’s the Dems plan. No plan is calling for government single-payer assisted suicide.
If this Nation has the best health care system in the world, why are employers constantly wanting out of it? It costs businesses tons of $$$ to offer health care to thier employees. I’ll let you, cultural conservatives who real powerful conservatives can’t stand, in on a secret: corporate America wants out of the insurance business. Too many headaches, too much lost time and revenue. Big business knows single payer health care has been around forever, because they have been the single payer!
The Gentle Cricket says:
Oregon Liberal,
First, I appreciate that you can bring some deciency to the debate. You make a mistake is saying that just because life expectancy is shorter and infant mortality are higher in the US that we don’t have better health care. By the same logic I can say that the number of storks in England has been decreasing…so has the number of births…therefore storks bring babies. Consider all of the social differences that affect the factors you cite: higher homicide rate in US v. Canada. Americans are incredibly fat compared to the other countries, which not only shortens life expectancy, it can also increase infant mortality. I would posit that more appropriate measures are things like survival after a cancer diagnosis, and efficacy of screening programs, etc… In some of those areas we are great, in others we are not.
I have mixed feelings about your Paragraph 2. Note that all of the examples you provide are Public goods, not private goods. Building infrastructure is a public good, and is therefore best met by government. Determining the needs and prices of goods and services is the realm of the market. Health care is not a public good. Treating it as such encourages overuse (consider if groceries were handled the same way).
I agree that Health Care is in need of help, and unfortunately Republicans have not offered any viable solutions. However, a Government program is not the solution. It’s been a failure in many countries, and the few countries where it has had some success (such as Sweden) have taxation rates that most Americans would consider absolutely unacceptable.
The Gentle Cricket says:
…a few more thoughts for my friend Oregon Liberal.
Your analysis of paragraph 4 is at odds with me, as well. People don’t clamor to use public restrooms for a multitude of reasons, one of which is the fact that those who run them (often the government) really have no interest in maintaining their quality. I too can provide examples…consider housing. Should the government provide it, along with Health Care? If it did, there would be two outcomes: people would opt for more house than they need and could otherwise afford, or the government would set limits on what house you could have, in what neighborhoods, etc…(Note that SB840 in California would have allowed the state government to set limits on how many practices would be allowed within an individual region).
I have seen evidence that people overutilize free goods, though I can’t cite any now. I can, however, tell you anecdotally that after working in the health care field and as a current second year medical student, I have seen overuse first hand repeatedly. It occurs with private insurance, and it is rampant when there is no copayment (as with worker’s compensation).
I think we could all recognize that reducing the cost of care (as with a free-market approach) would not only allow many more Americans to afford private coverage, it would also alleviate the pecuniary disaster that our current entitlement programs are creating.
Orrie says:
Hi,
As someone who has worked with the lower socioeconomic groups in my state for the last 15+ years, I would like to share a few things I have noted about the abuses of our Medicaid system. First, people with Medicaid frequently skip going to a primary care physician when they are sick. They head for the emergency room after hours for COUGHING or TOOTHACHE PAIN or a sprained ankle or a BUG BITE. I have been in homes (subsidized housing) working with clients and when I ask “do you have a regular doctor” they almost always reply, “No, I just use the emergency room.” These are just a few examples that I have experienced REPEATEDLY. We have a higher mortality rate than some other countries because women who are eligible for Medicaid for Pregnant Women don’t like filling out the paperwork “I don’t like nobody in my business” and sometimes because they don’t like having to go to the health department to get a verified pregnancy test. I have known several women who used ‘feeling bad’ just to go to the hospital to get a pregnacy test. A $300+ pregnancy test as opposed to that $15 pregnancy test down at the health department??? Beyond that, they (the poor, downtrodden, neglected) don’t make prenatal care a priority even when FREE transportation* is available to them for these doctor appointments. *We have free medical transportation in my county. Furthermore, taking their prenatal vitamins (which are paid for by Medicaid) isn’t a priority either. As someone who works very hard to TEACH and HELP this population to move beyond their circumstances, I am very tired of them claiming victimhood and tired of those who do not work with this population assuming that these people aren’t given every chance possible to receive care. When is America going to wake up, realize that life is all about choices, and start holding people responsible for themselves and their choices rather than using victimology as an excuse???
Chris says:
Hi Visiting Oregon Liberal,
Welcome to our humble site. We are honored to have you. And I am not blowing smoke. We more than welcome anyone who wants to challenge us. Especially those that do so without the bile and all that poisons so many discussions. I am kind of hurried tonight, kids and all, but I’ll start here and get as far as I can and then continue on tomorrow.
This is really going to be a major case of agree to disagree. There are so many points in your rebuttal that I find patently wrong, just as you find mine, so we provide our evidence and allow the people to decide.
So let’s start with paragraph 1.
I too am glad that the private sector yet again showed that it will take care of things. Yes, it was PR, but there are many programs that the drug companies run to help uninsured and low income people get medications. Heck, even the vile evil (cool, an anagram!) wal-mart offers 5 dollar drugs. Actually it is easier to get an insurance company to cover treatment for chemo than Oregon’s plan. I did delve into the article actually. And yes, I did see the 5% in 5 years. However I did see that the standards and tests of meds were not updated in 15 years and that the drug in question has in excess of a 35% 1 year survival. No mention of the 5 year, but since it was 15 years since the updates and tests who knows what it is now.
You are right, insurance companies have standards too. But insureds don’t get denied “all the time”. They may get denied experimental treatments. They may be denied useless treatments like pain killers to a brain dead coma person, but a lot more often than not, if the doctor deems it needed, the company covers it. In fact, mine is obligated to cover what the doctor orders or stick the doctor with it so unneeded treatments don’t get prescribed but needed ones do. (Source, my BCBSNC book). This is not the case in Oregon. According to “unnamed local oncologists” Oregon changes when they want. They used to cover this, but now don’t.
You say “The solution isn’t to dismiss an otherwise largely successful program based on its preference for preventative care for children. The invisible hand of the free market won’t save the other Barbara Wagners who would be left without any insurance at all were the OHP dismantled.”
First, I am dismissing an UNsuccessful program. When people of equal need have to win lotteries to get in, you have a failure. Second, that visible hand of free market DID save Barbara Wagner. They save more and more people each day.
My links to failures are not absurd. They are typical failures. Look at the articles. Sweeden has a “goal” to make sure you have your surgeries in 3 months or less yet fail repeatedly. The article talked about the “first world country” having a “3rd world healthcare system” complete with interviews of patients. The English health care system is a joke by it’s own measure and by your acknowlegement of the articles content. Anyone trying to argue that Canada’s health care system is not a failure has lost the debate without starting. All 3 of these countries have one thing in common, a booming “health vacation” trade where the fly to countries where there isn’t socialized healthcare (USA, India, Poland) and get their work taken care of. Canada has taken steps to ban that, but to no avail.
Paragraph 2:
Taxes are not the fundamental difference between libs and cons. No one on my side will say there should not be taxes. SPENDING is the difference. Cons believe that spending should be limited. Libs believe that (taxing and) spending policies should push society in a certain way.
You suggest that “Taxes are necessary to pay for that which the free market can’t provide. Taxes pay for the FDIC insurance that covers your bank, they pay for the roads you drive on, the fire department that services your neighborhood, the police who defend your property, the infrastructure that takes sewage from your home, and so on.”.
A couple issues with that. First, there isn’t much of anything that a government provides that a free market can’t provide better. Fire departments are a decent example, but our city is well manned with volunteer fire departments and they are supported exclusively by the private community through donations. Police are a good example, but be real now, they are more for crime scene response and cleanup. The private market does more protection with private security companies, alarm systems and the like. Roads are another good one. Although there are some states that are now allowing companies to plan, develop and maintain roads so the state doesn’t have too. The company charges tolls for the privilege and gets no tax money. Cities around here are using water and septic to forcefully annex other towns to get more tax dollars. So I am not a fan of city water and sewer. I do see their need in the high density areas. So far, you have aside from the FDIC you have named the very functions of government and like you, we conservatives have NO PROBLEMS supporting taxation for that. It’s the other garbage (midnight basketball, head start, etc) that we quibble over and again, that is spending and that is what separates a lib from a con.
Paragraph 3 is merely pointing out that when the government tries to do something that the private sector should, it never succeeds. Not a single one of the uni health care countries is a success. Oh, by a liberal measure, do they cover everyone evenly, maybe, but by a performance measure where like in America, you can have cancer surgery in a week (my son did twice) or have a hip replacement within 2 weeks (coworker, 2 weeks after she was x-rayed and MRI’ed) same day MRI (can’t get that in Canada!). But here again is another difference between us. Libs think there is a basic “right” to health care. I think you have the right to what you can afford.
Your paragraph 3 response to me is flawed. First, no this country does not give up trying things. You are right, we never let setbacks stop us in our pursuits. However the American way is not to keep trying new ways for the GOVERNMENT to do things, it’s always been the place for INDIVIDUALS to succeed. Individuals keep trying after setbacks. It has never been the American way for the government to keep doing and doing.
Second, we do have the best health care system in the world and everyone, including illegal aliens can utilize it. Go to Canada as an American and demand free coverage. See what they say! Demand free health care in Mexico. I’ll talk to you after you get out of jail.
Ok, paragraph 4 was funny as heck. I laughed as hard at yours as you did at mine I guess. You are comparing apples to oranges. First, since when is city tap water free? My brother in law has a water meter on his house. He gets charged. Police do a certain function and the bad guys use them all the time. But to make a good comparison, call the police with an ear ache a couple times, see what your bail costs. Public restrooms? Where? I guess in parks, but at a gas station, a restaurant, they are owned by private entities that let the public use them. Oh, and yes, people do exploit them. I have used McD’s a number of times without buying things. Bad Chris I guess.
But let’s go oranges to oranges. Let’s look at real government handouts and behaviours. Welfare: When it came out people scoffed at our ignorance. No way it makes out of wedlock births go up when you give more money for having babies. Um, yeah, right. EITC. In the poor neighborhoods there is a time of year when things get crowded. You will go for months and not see people, then suddenly they are on their porches. Why, well they know the exact date their Earned Income Tax Credit is maximized. Then they quit their jobs and go under the table. Seen it first hand. Social Security? Collapsing because PEOPLE decided it should be the answer to all retirement ills and politicians didn’t have the backbone to say no. I could go on, but yes, things being free DOES increase usage and decreases respect and responsiblity for that free item.
As for the health care, go to any ER after hours. Watch the people coming in. Headaches, bruises, basic stuff that if they made an appointment and paid a co-pay any doctor could take care of, but medicaid is free… It DOES happen. Maybe not in your area, but it DOES here.
Paragraph 5:
Ok, sorry, but I have to throw the BS penalty flag on this whole paragraph. First, infant mortality rates are reported by each countries own standards. So, if, say oh, I don’t know, Austria has a baby born prematurely and it doesn’t weigh a pound, it doesn’t get counted as an infant mortality. In America, it does. Or, if, oh, I don’t know, say, France, if the baby is born before 26 weeks (6.5 months, so 2.5 months premie) it doesn’t count, no matter how long it spends on life support. In America, it does. (Source: http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm)
Ditto life expectancy. (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html). Our country doesn’t factor out trauma deaths like car accidents. Other countries do. When you compare like to like, well, hey, we don’t do so bad: http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html
We have the best med system in the world. No one can claim the steps in medicine we have made. No country can claim the speed and accuracy of our medical facilities. Again, people take “medical vacations” to be treated here rather than be treated in their own countries. http://www.squidoo.com/medical_tourism_overseas
Para 6:
“There’s no magic bullet. No one claims universal health care will solve every problem with health care in the United States” But people pushing government run care DO! Look at Hillary’s promises in 93. Listen to what Obama says. They will promise that magic bullet. They do all the time.
Insurance companies profits. A mere pittance to the cost overruns that a government facilitated system will see. Look at those countries. They are all going broke. Our system would have layers of unionized gov’t employees that will take it’s toll.
“Again, I remind you that infant mortality is one of the best measures of the quality of care, and in both that and in life expectancy, those other countries have us beat.” Saying it doesn’t make it so. My links knocked that one so far out of the park, it is now in orbit.
Again, thanks for reading. I am sure others will be talking to you as well, but that is my response. Have a great night.
Chris says:
FT Repubs: Please tell me where I said that the dems want single payer assisted suicide. Please take a lesson from Oregon Liberal and real the article. Obama wants single payer health care. I am saying it is a crappy idea. Get your facts and bring it.
Chris says:
Nicely put Orrie. Well said gentle cricket. Thanks.
Chris says:
Again Visiting Oregon Liberal, come by ANYTIME! We do enjoy all visitors, especially the ones that have intelligent conversations without bile!
Thanks again for reading! It is appreciated
TC says:
I’d also like to tackle Oregon Liberal’s assertions regarding paragraph number 5…
Take a look at the demographics of Canada versus those of the United States. They aren’t the same.
The life expectancy of blacks in the US is lower than for whites. There are far more blacks as a percentage of the population in the US than in Canada.
Now a lib could claim that blacks receive lower quality health care than whites. Maybe, but that’s only a minor factor. But there’s also the fact that lifestyle choices greatly affect life expectancy.
Menthol cigarettes, high fat & cholesterol diets, riskier sexual behavior and greater acceptance of and engagement in violent crime/behavior also shorten lifespans.
One can’t compare gun violence statistics of armed societies such as Israel and Switzerland to those of the United States for the same reason. Demographics and the behaviors of different groups play a role in the numbers.
Life expectancy in other countries may be higher due to lifestyle and dietary choices. For example; the long lives in certain Mediterranean countries due to their healthy diets.
Call me a bigot, but facts are facts. Facts don’t lie. Take a gander at the (liberal) CDC’s stats on life expectancies for different racial and ethnic groups.
Visiting Oregon Liberal says:
Thank you to those who responded (except F. T. Republicans; please stay off my side if you can’t be civil).
I’m mulling over my responses to each of your points, but before I get to that, I have a specific challenge for each of you, especially Chris.
Most of the links you’ve provided, with the exception of the Daily Mail article and a couple links about the Oregon Health Plan, are to conservative pundits and blogs, not to primary sources of information. I prefer to use primary sources such as the CIA factbook to support my arguments, and challenge you to do so as well. I don’t point to liberal blogs, such as Daily Kos or FireDogLake, because you would automatically dismiss arguments based on the writings of such inherently biased pundits, and rightly so. When I see such well-known conservative pundits as David Hogberg, writing for the NCPPR (a conservative think-tank), I have the same reaction.
I think the recycled opinions of pundits is a major problem with political discourse in America. I don’t want to be told what to think by a pundit, I want to look at the real statistics from the real sources, and make up my own mind, and I would encourage you to do likewise.
P.S. Please feel free to cite that squidoo link as much as you want. It’s all about people leaving the United States on medical holidays to avoid the excessive expense here. Sure, it also mentions leaving the UK and Canada to avoid waits, but it doesn’t mention coming here.
Chris says:
Hi Visiting Oregon Liberal. In the original article, I have a hat tip to the Rott, a link to a newspaper article (statesmanjournal), a link to a newspaper article (dailymall, well,if you can call that a newspaper), a link to a documentary video on Canada, a link to a fact check paper covering Sweden loaded with credited facts and figures including to the CIA world factbook, a link to an unbiased medical news letter telling of the lottery, and a link to a Berkley CA left wing health monitoring site detailing the cuts. Please show me the unreliable source there.
In my rebuttal I have a reference to my BCBSNC book, I guess I could scan it in for you to see, a link to US News and World Report (infant mortality), a link to a blog discussing a Reuters article with CDC stats used to destroy it, and an ad for medical tourism. So, I used ONE, count it ONE link that you said to avoid. Well, maybe 2. The video was just a documentary, and as we have seen from M. Moore, documentaries can be complete BS.
Sure, I’ll try to avoid it in the future, but just because the link is a blog, doesn’t make it wrong and just because it’s on a news site or a government site doesn’t make it right. Man made climate change is complete and utter BS, but yet, the government scientists who are dependent upon global warming fantasy dollars continue to push it. Likewise, it was a blog that uncovered the money and links from CBS news and Dan Rather to the fake documents. So, sure, I’ll use news stories, but that doesn’t make it any more accurate.
Second, I’ll gladly use that squimodo link. Sure, people leave the US due to prices. Never said they did. You get what you pay for. I was merely supporting that people flee the socialized medicine countries (there are a lot more companies like Squidmodo) to go to India or, yes, the US. The biggest source of Canada’s outsourced health care is the US.
Finally, please understand that this site welcomes challenges and all, but we are extremely ADD. In other words, if you take a couple days to respond, we’ll probably have moved on to the next bright shiny object ie, Obama’s latest gaffe/flipflop, etc. He gives more scoffs than Bush does. Going to be a fun time with the messiah. Anyway, should that happen, it might be a long time between our replies. Don’t get impatient, we’ll eventually get to it, but it may take a while.
jacksonville crime scene cleaners says:
It’s not about creating something that works, it’s about fooling the American people into voting over all control to the government. You’re using logic to formulate a decision, most people do not.
Visiting Oregon Liberal says:
Heh… ADD is right. You switched to at least three different topics on which you are utterly and completely wrong in that post. ;)
Fair enough. I’m a slow responder due to limited time availability, so I won’t be insulted if my days-late responses are ignored.
mercles says:
So under the neo-conservative plan noone can get health coverage unless they can pay 2k a month insurance premiums? Hmmmm seems like the feudal system in this country doesn’t work nor the socialist system. How about we just go ahead and remove everyone in power now so that the citizens have a fair shot at living free without too many hassles from the gov’t.
Chris says:
No, Mercles, I am saying that if I can cover my family from Blue Cross Blue Shield of NC for 480 per month, so can someone else. It’s all about choices. If you can afford beer, smokes, tattoos, piercings, gold teeth, an SUV, cable, a cell phone, etc, then you can lose some of those and get insurance. Quit making excuses.
The Gentle Cricket says:
And Mercles, there is a distinct difference between a program designed as a safety net and one designed as a life-long entitlement. Characterizing “the neo-conservative” as a big F-you is neither accurate or productive.
Furthermore, I have never paid anywhere close to $2000 per month to insure my family, and the intent of a well-designed free market approach would serve to reduce health care costs so that more people would be able to afford it, yet incentives would remain for advancement.
Consider: The cost of goods continue to fall because suppliers have to innovate in order to give us better products for less money to remain competetive. Such competetive pressures are weak currently, and would be nonexistent if costs were even further abstracted.