"Honestly I feel it's ridiculous...

...that we live in a first world country where I have to pay for basic health care."

"In any nation, there's a group of people who refuse to participate in society, or take responsibility for their own well-being."

I am certainly not the first one to say this, but it bears repeating. There's no free lunch. Every time the government is going to "give" you something, you're going to give up something in return. In the case of John Edwards' health care plan, you're going to give up the freedom to decide when to go to the doctor.

How long will it be, then, before government decides what you can eat, drink, smoke, etc.? And for what? Apparently for a non-problem, as the video shows.

We had this whole issue pop up right here in Great Falls. Jack Goldberg, an apologist for the Canadian system who is trying to save face after his own citizens couldn't get care under his own country's "free" system, said: ""I think we need to appreciate that it's because of our publicly insured system that this couple was able to get access to a hugely expensive service in the United States that may very well be denied to tens of millions of Americans. So even what happened there is a point in favor of our system — that these people were able to get there." (Prolific commenter, LK, makes a similar argument here.)

It's easy to say that people are not getting health care, but where is the evidence that there is a significant number of people suffering because they can't get treatment? Maybe they couldn't get within 250 yards of an ER.


Anonymous said...

You seem to be really evidence averse, asking others to provide you with evidence to support opposing views, while you yourself offer little or none to support your own arguments. I sure hope you're not an attorney.

"It's easy to say that people are not getting health care, but where is the evidence that there is a significant number of people suffering because they can't get treatment?"

The Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics states,
"Children with health insurance, whether public or private, are more likely than children without
insurance to have a regular and accessible source of health care." - http://www.childstats.gov/pdf/ac2007/ac_07.pdf

That lack of care does in fact cause suffering:
"Lack of insurance was related to substandard care, such as using
fewer procedures and having shorter inpatient stays." -

The National Academies Institute of Medicine states:
"Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." - http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175

So, it seems that a significant number of uninsured people are suffering because they can't get treatment.

Now, do you have any evidence that lack of health insurance causes no suffering?

Anonymous said...


GeeGuy said...

You changed my statement. I did not say that "lack of health insurance causes no suffering." The implied utopianism in your response is apparent.

If we only adopt a Canadian/Swedish/Finnish/socialist universal health care system, there will be no more suffering, right?

What I thought might be evident from my post is the fact that there is and always will be suffering under both systems. Advocates of universal health care don't want to talk about the other side of the equation: rationing and huge expense. Your Pollyanna "free lunch" attitude is silly, regardless of how many Google searches you run to find "evidence" from advocacy groups.

I like to discuss things, even with people I disagree with vehemently. I don't want to waste my time, though, with an anonymous pot-shotter. "I sure hope you're not an attorney." Fair enough, I sure hope you're not involved in making policy.

Hawkeye said...

From the American Medical Association: Actual Causes of Death, 2000

"We found that about half of all deaths that occurred in the United States in 2000 could be attributed to a limited number of largely preventable behaviors and exposures. Our findings indicate that interventions to prevent and increase cessation of smoking, improve diet, and increase physical activity must become much higher priorities in the public health and health care systems."

"We estimate that roughly 400,000 deaths now occur annually due to poor diet and physical inactivity."
"An estimated 3 million individuals in the United States have serious drug problems."
"An estimated 20 million persons are newly infected with sexually transmitted diseases each year in the United States. We estimate that 20,000 deaths were due to sexual behavior"
"We estimate that approximately
435,000 deaths were attributable to
smoking in 2000."
"We estimate that 400,000 deaths were attributable to poor diet and physical inactivity."
"Our best estimate for total alcohol attributable deaths in 2000 is approximately 85,000."

The majority of attention toward US health care has been about "coverage" issues, as if being covered by health insurance kept you healthy. About half of the true causes of death in this country are caused by preventable problems, yet we continue to focus on whether a person has health insurance or not.
Guess what, everybody in the USA already has some degree of universal health insurance. If you present to the emergency room in this country, whether you pay or not, you will receive care. Big problem or small, it does not matter.
If you actually want to be healthy however, take a big pill called "personal responsibility". This alone will dramatically improve your longevity and amazingly reduce your health care costs. My health care plan is called UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE RESPONSIBILITY and it's free!

Anonymous said...

Those people arguing that if we adopt a Canadian type system, they won't be able to "select" their doctor have apparently never been involved with an HMO! Come ON, people! The rationing of care is ALREADY happening! And you DON'T get to "choose" your doctor! And here's the kicker. Your DOCTOR is NOT the one deciding your care! How can this be a good system? It's not. So let's be realistic in our arguments. Anyone who denies the growing, disproportionate role of the insurance industry in health care is NOT being honest. Just talk to ANY doctor. Maybe twent-five years ago, my doctor friends were all against socialized medicine of some type. They are now NOT against it! They have done a 180 degree change. They have seen the decline in heatlh care, and the encroachment of the insurance industry. Here, let me posit this. It is said that if you like the post office, you'll love socialized medicine. I would say, if you love dealing with your auto insurer or someone else's, you'll just love your health insurance! If we can waste five HUNDRED billion dollars on Iraq and bush's senseless war, we can afford national HEALTH INSURANCE! (not socialized medicine) If you don't want it, or want more coverage, you can do that too! It's all very complicated and complex, but we CAN do better than the current system. We MUST take care of the health of our citizens, JUST as they must do their part with a healthy lifestyle! Back later with more, but gotta run (literally) But I'll leave you with this. I finally got a copy of the contentious city council meeting, and I gotta say that donna and her minions are outta control. These people are SICK! And I mean that. Sumthin' real wrong on that city council. If anyone would like to watch the meeting, I'll provide my copy. It resembles some third world country were a little Idi Amin wannabee (except she's white and female) simply destroys dissenters! It's ugly.


Anonymous said...

If you love dealing with your City Commission, Chief Corky, Mayor Stebbins, you're going to LOVE Federal Health Care!!!

Ever been to Wash DC and had to deal with the ABC's? You're going to love it.

A new federal agency with tens of thousands of new jobs for the under employed of society. Can you say more taxes! Yippee, more pork for the pigs to fight over.

They are going to have to scrap the barrel because TSA already sucked the scum off the side.

Just wait until you call into your health care gatekeeper and have to listen to the selection of numbers to press as you work through the multi-lingual menus. Only to land in the loving care of some EEOC 7th grade drop out that has a big chip on the shoulder for you. Worse yet, they get off work in 20 minutes and really could care less about your ruptured appendix.

Bring it on! Oh yea. Stick it to us good. Gimme me that FREE health care.

Free health care, the dream of freeloaders!

Anonymous said...

Refresh my memory -

How do and how will pinko-commie-hippie-freak-socialist-pigs make a living if they can't sponge off the misery they create in their bizarre, freakish world.

Oh, that's right. Bizarro World requires excessive deviousness designed to scam money out of other people until the people become slaves to Bizarro World Masters.

It's all about the New Bizarro World Order - me, Me, ME - taking from you, You, YOU!

Lack of choices in Socialist Universal Health Care plans are historically documented and specifically related to substandard care. (Just talk to all those Russians who kept trying to escape the USSR...especially the atheletes.)

Precision in services is futile and your health care will be approximated if you buy into social-communist rhetoric.

Resistance Is Not Futile

Hawkeye said...

Majority of U.S. health leaders reject fully taxpayer-funded universal healthcare system: study
Healthcare Financial Management, Feb, 2006

"Despite rising health care costs and repeated calls for universal health care, nine in 10 U.S. health care leaders say that a primarily taxpayer-funded health care system, as in Canada and Britain, is not the best way to solve the nation's health care problems, according to new survey findings released in December."

LK, I disagree with you regarding your assertion about what type of system doctors want (see above). Health care is rationed in every country. In Canada access to specialty care is rationed. Yes, you will get in promptly to primary care but be prepared to wait months for specialized testing (MRI, etc.)or a visit with a subspecialist. Good luck if you need a nonemergent procedure. You will not get a surgery date until you see the subspecialist and after that you may wait another 1-2 years for surgery. You may not relieve your suffering by paying out of pocket to get quicker service in Canada. Their system forbids this.

Americans would never stand for Canadian style care. The same system that has become accepted in Canada would cause rioting in the US. Think about how friendly Canadians are on the highway and contrast that with Americans. We want everything, we want it fast and of course free.

Quit moaning about not being able to pick your own doctor. If you want care a little cheaper sign with an HMO. If you want access to any doctor, most insurers allow you to pay extra for that. Spend a few minutes, read the contract, then decide if the coverage and the panel of providers are acceptable or not. Complaining about this issue later is like complaining about a deductible. If you don't want a deductible then just pay more up front.

I agree with you that a change is needed but it needs to be market based. We need to change from the “defined benefit plan" we have now to a "defined contribution plan”.

Anonymous said...

It’s really just a matter of how liberal you want to get.

Fill in the blank:
Honestly I feel it's ridiculous...
...that we live in a first world country where I have to pay for (fill in the blank)

a. basic health care
b. my home
c. my meals
d. my clothes
e. plastic surgery
e. hookers and beer

Anonymous said...

We can only speculate how many of these posters are Air Farce retirees living off a government check and running out to the Base for their socialized welfare state healthcare.

God I love this hick town!

GeeGuy said...

Man, if you can't see the difference between a military retiree getting medical benefits and socialized medicine, I can't even begin to discuss this issue with you.

Anonymous said...

Re: Anonymous...fill in the blank

ROFLOL! Pathetically true!

LK - funny what you think we should and should not pay for....

Anonymous said...

Rich conservatives and trial lawyers should pay through the nose for their own private insurance -- for the right to drive their Lincoln Navigators to the Mayo Clinic ot the M.D Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Or, just refuse coverage and die.

Anonymous said...

Easy there, partner. If all the rich, productive conservatives die, who do you think will pay for your health care? Maybe your beloved government can just print some money to pay your doctors, huh?

Anonymous said...

RE: If all the rich, productive conservatives die, who do you think will pay for your health care?

Here's something to consider:

"The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

"Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

"Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

"Only 6 percent of poor households are over crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

"The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

"Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

"Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

"Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

"Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher."

Now maybe this will make sense to some people:

Restoring the American Social Contract By Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D.

Returning to the principles of mutual obligation within a financially responsible framework will restore the American social contract to its original principles as a bargain between society and the individual, based more solidly on institutions that individuals value as integral parts of their lives, with the government dimension appropriately limited and sustainable, and more just to future generations.