I know this debate has been raging on this Board reflecting just how emotive an issue it is but have you considered that you may not be getting the bang you think for your buck

It seems the average person in the US spends more on health care than UK or France, sufferers a higher infant mortality rate and has a lower life expectancy. Now I know this could be considered heresy but just maybe the system is broken

Now please don't rush in and shoot the messenger because I post this just to get some new statistics into the debate and maybe those in the US might realise they don't live in the best of all possible worlds where health care is concerned

Which article?
I saw a bunch of articles for Asia.

And NO we are not getting any bang for our buck. Especially when you get older and end up in a nursing home... they kill you there!!

I tried to post this link earlier but it didn't work but I will try again
BBC NEWS | Health | Healthcare around the world (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8201711.stm)

Look it is well known here that to rely on the public system could kill you but there are poor medicos everywhere, yes nursing homes run for a profit are a problem but who is going to take it on?

It's not the nursing homes run for a profit that are a problem here. They give fine quality care .But it is expensive and ultimately the person in the nursing home ends up in a public run, urine stinkin, holding pen of a nursing home. Government run on full display.

The devil is in the details on statistics . Infant mortality as an example is just a question of how they are counted.

The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates.

Our life expectency numbers are lower not because of the quality of our care ;but other factors like we ranked first or near first in:automobile deaths, drug and alcohol related deaths, obeisety related deaths, and homicide.These are cultural related factors and not quality of care .

And of course we all have a difference of opinions on how to contain costs. I think there are some reforms that could be implemented that would make real costs reductions that would not require the dismantling of the system... or more accurate... taking a wrecking ball to a system that covers almost 20% of the GDP , as the President and Congress want to do in a bumrush fashion.
We already see their vision for cost containment... deny care... it is written into their bills ,and is written extensively by the "thinkers" who authored the model that the dems used as a template and a formula when crafting their bill.

The devil is in the details on statistics . Infant mortality as an example is just a question of how they are counted.

T


A fine political answer, Tom, the statistics have been twisted, we are more truthful than anyone else, and in any case our system represents too much of the GDP to reform. Why do you guys bother electing politicians, you should just let your local doctors elect the President and by the way that last excuse is used for climate change as well, so now you have two things you can do nothing about because of the impact on GDP. What happens when one effects the economy so much you can't afford the other?

The reality is it's only the poor people who can't afford health care and they don't contribute much of the GDP, actually they are a drag on the GDP aren't they? Not keeping up their share of making the doctors rich by increasing the take of the medical profession. I have news for you, you have been counting the wrong things in GDP. GDP is product not services and the reason you can't afford the services is you have stopped making the product. That is a macroeconomic lesson for you.

it's not the nursing homes run for a profit that are a problem here. they give fine quality care .But it is expensive and ultimately the person in the nursing home ends up in a public run, urine stinkin, holding pen of a nursing home. Government run on full display.



Really! You have government run nursing homes? No wonder you have a problem.
What we have here is that the government gives a benefit for every nursing home patient and the patient makes up the difference, or not, perhaps, but it doesn't run nursing homes. But then we have a different philosophy of life to what is obviously common there

The reality is it's only the poor people who can't afford health care and they don't contribute much of the GDP, actually they are a drag on the GDP aren't they? Not keeping up their share of making the doctors rich by increasing the take of the medical profession. I have news for you, you have been counting the wrong things in GDP. GDP is product not services and the reason you can't afford the services is you have stopped making the product. That is a macroeconomic lesson for you.

Nonsense ;our medical device ,pharmaceuticals industries etc are the best in the world .

Also if the concern is the poor ,then there are social systems in place in the country to account for their difficulties. As has been posted already ,our gvt provided care is a significant proportion of the overall system we have. In fact ;a large part of the costs associated with gvt provided care is one of the prime reasons that costs are high .

On infant mortality rate UK

The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209034/The-babies-born-hospital-corridors-Bed-shortage-forces-4-000-mothers-birth-lifts-offices-hospital-toilets.html)

Hard to believe the Brits are giving better prenatal care then we are .

Why do you guys bother electing politicians, you should just let your local doctors elect the President

At least doctors take oaths to do no harm.

Please take DailyMail articles with a grain of salt - they are the National Enquirer of England. Here's more fun reading for you from that site: Femail | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/index.html)

I'll take it into consideration . I advise the same caution from linking with the NY Slimes or... see my posting today about CBS

Here is the only thing I look at. According to the World Health Organization the US is ranked 37. Something needs to be fixed. If France is ranked number 1 then maybe we should check out what they are doing. The link below shows all the rankings.

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)

In a few minutes I expect certain people here to crap all over WHO because they don't like the findings.

In a few minutes I expect certain people here to crap all over WHO because they don't like the findings.

Gee I wonder who would do that?

I have already said my peace about that discredited organization.

Right on cue!

Hahahahahahhahahahahahah!!

The reality is it's only the poor people who can't afford health care and they don't contribute much of the GDP, actually they are a drag on the GDP aren't they? Not keeping up their share of making the doctors rich by increasing the take of the medical profession. I have news for you, you have been counting the wrong things in GDP. GDP is product not services and the reason you can't afford the services is you have stopped making the product. That is a macroeconomic lesson for you.

How about another little look at the numbers. Hospitals agreed to "contribute $155 billion in cost savings over 10 years" to help pay for Obamacare. IN return, the hospitals are projecting to receive about $171 billion in new dollars from the newly insured. You know, all those poor people that can't afford insurance or health care. So the hospitals are forecasting a $16 billion gain from cutting costs for Obamacare.

Here's the kicker:


But some experts wonder at the price of that political support. Alain Enthoven, a health economist at Stanford University, noted that $155 billion was only about 1.5 percent of total hospital revenue over 10 years — even before taking into account the new, larger amount of money that hospitals can expect if more people have insurance.

$155 billion is only 1.5 percent of total revenue? That's the cost to hospitals for treating the uninsured, less than 2 percent of hospital revenue?

I know this debate has been raging on this Board reflecting just how emotive an issue it is but have you considered that you may not be getting the bang you think for your buck

It seems the average person in the US spends more on health care than UK or France, sufferers a higher infant mortality rate and has a lower life expectancy. Now I know this could be considered heresy but just maybe the system is broken.

Now please don't rush in and shoot the messenger because I post this just to get some new statistics into the debate and maybe those in the US might realise they don't live in the best of all possible worlds where health care is concerned

Here's the problem with the statistics that you are citing... the USA and the European countries don't measure infant mortality the same way.

In the UK and France, if a baby dies beneath a certain birth weight, it is considered never to have been born at all, and is ignored in the statistics. So the death of an infant below a certain birthweight is never taken into consideration. Also, babies that die after premature birth (regardless of weight) are not always taken into consideration in the statistics. In the USA, the statistics include births of babies of ALL WEIGHTS and all gestation periods. Under those circumstances, yes, you are going to get a disparity in the statistics. I wonder what the infant mortality rates would be if ALL BABIES BORN IN THE UK AND FRANCE were considered in their statistics.

What the statistics also don't show is that the number of premies that are saved in the USA is MUCH HIGHER than the number saved in any other country in the world. We have the technology to save babies that are born as small as 1 pound fairly regularly, whereas in other countries such babies are ABANDONED by the medical system, and are never even considered born at all.

So, like Babe Ruth, we have more strikeouts, but we also have more home-runs than anyone else. And the home runs FAR OUTPACE the strikeouts.

I'd say that that's money VERY WELL spent.

Well if you believe that Costa Rica (ranked 36) has a superior health care system then ours there is little left to talk about.

Forget the infant mortality rates, here's the dirty little secret about WHO's rankings. "Health level" and "health responsiveness" only account for 37.5 percent of the ranking (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf).


Take "Financial Fairness" (FF), worth 25 percent of the total (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9259). This factor measures inequality in how much households spend on healthcare as a percentage of their income. The greater the inequality, the worse the country's performance.

Notice that FF necessarily improves when the government shoulders more of the health spending burden, rather than relying on the private sector. To use the existing WHO rankings to justify more government involvement in healthcare is therefore to engage in circular reasoning, because the rankings are designed to favor greater government involvement. (Clinton's plan would attempt to improve the American FF score by capping insurance premiums.)

The ostensible reason to include FF in the health index is to account for people landing in dire financial straits because of their health needs. Yet the FF factor worsens for every household that deviates from the average percentage of income spent on healthcare, regardless of whether the deviation is on the high side or low side.

That means the FF factor doesn't just penalize a country because some households are especially likely to become impoverished from health costs; it also penalizes a country because some households are especially unlikely to become impoverished from health costs.

The other two factors, "health distribution" and "responsiveness distribution," are no better. Together worth 37.5 percent of a country's score, these factors measure inequality in health level and responsiveness. Strictly speaking, neither measures healthcare performance, because inequality is distinct from quality of care. It's entirely possible to have a healthcare system characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone.

Suppose, for instance, that Country A has health responsiveness that is "excellent" for most citizens but merely "good" for some disadvantaged groups, while Country B has responsiveness that is uniformly "poor" for everyone. Country B would score higher than Country A in responsiveness distribution, despite Country A having better responsiveness for even its worst-off citizens.

What if the quality of healthcare improves for half of the population, while remaining the same for the other half? This should be regarded as an unambiguous improvement: some people get better off, and no one gets worse off. But in the WHO index, the effect is ambiguous because the improvement could increase inequality.

The WHO rankings have also been adjusted to reflect efficiency: how well a country is doing relative to how much it spends. In the media, however, this distinction is often lost.

Costa Rica ranks higher than the United States (number 36 versus number 37), but that does not mean Costa Ricans get better healthcare than Americans. Americans most likely get better healthcare -- just not as much better as could be expected given how much we spend. If the question is health outcomes alone, without reference to spending, we should look at the unadjusted ranking, where the U.S. is number 15 and Costa Rica is number 45. (And even the number 15 rank is problematic, for all the reasons discussed above.)

The WHO rankings implicitly take all differences in health outcomes unexplained by spending or literacy and attribute them entirely to health system performance. Nothing else, from tobacco use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into account. These variables were excluded largely because of underlying paternalist assumptions about the proper role of the health system.

If the culture has a predilection for unhealthy foods, there may be little healthcare providers can do about it. Conversely, if the culture has a pre-existing preference for healthy foods, the healthcare system hardly deserves the credit. Some people are happy to give up a few potential months or even years of life in exchange for the pleasures of smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports, and so on. The WHO approach, rather than taking people's preferences as given, deems some preferences better than others, and then praises or blames the health system for them.

Those who cite the WHO ranking to justify greater government involvement in the health system -- like the plans pitched by the leading Democratic presidential candidates -- are assuming what they're trying to prove. The WHO healthcare ranking system does not escape political bias. It advances ideological assumptions that most Americans might find questionable under the guise of objectivity.

If the rankings are designed to favor government run health care then of course the US is going to be down the list a ways, but these rankings do NOT reflect the quality or availability of health care in the U.S.

well if you believe that Costa Rica (ranked 36) has a superior health care system then ours there is little left to talk about.

Yeah, and I'd like to see how many people go to Malta (ranked #5 by WHO) for their cancer treatments.

Or go to Spain (ranked #7) for their heart bypass surgery.

Or go to Colombia (ranked # 22) for a kidney transplant.

Or to the United Arab Emirates (#27) for AIDS treatments.

Or to Dominica (#35) for post-stroke rehab.

Do WHO's rakings actually make sense to ANYONE? Does anyone really think that they will receive better medical care in any of these places than they would in the USA? Is everyone on the left really that intellectually dishonest that they actually buy into this report?

And you guys still rely on this WHO report to sustain your "government-option" position on health care?

Paraclete,

In response to your original post, please read this:

American Thinker: The Cost of Free Government Health Care (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_cost_of_free_government_he_1.html)

It responds better, point-by-point, to the "comparative statistics" between the USA and other countries that I can. Also, I would look at some of the original sources the article cites.

Elliot

Steve,

That CATO article is a great citation. I hadn't seen that one before. Thanks for posting it. I'm adding it to my arsenal.

Elliot

Besides ;WHO has not updated the ranking in almost a decade ;and has no plans to do so. Their formula is too convoluted .

In response to your original post, please read this:

American Thinker: The Cost of Free Government Health Care (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_cost_of_free_government_he_1.html)

It responds better, point-by-point, to the "comparative statistics" between the USA and other countries that I can.
That articles spews that same talking points as you've been saying since this begun. There is nothing new there. Even excon has debunked most of them.

Do WHO's rakings actually make sense to ANYONE? Does anyone really think that they will receive better medical care in any of these places than they would in the USA? Is everyone on the left really that intellectually dishonest that they actually buy into this report?Hello again, El:

You accuse the left of being dishonest, yet you have a GLARING hole in your argument... And, it's THIS hole that's at the center of the debate... Yet, you don't address it.. I wonder who's being intellictually dishonest. Ahhhh, never mind. I KNOW who's being dishonest...

I suppose there's a few UNINSURED people who might think that care is better in those places, because they're getting NO care here.

You keep saying that EVERYBODY here has health care, but that just isn't so. You say people can get treated at the ER, for regular long term health care, but that just isn't so. The sick uninsured people in this country, who need regular long term health care GO WITHOUT!!

So, keep up with claptrap. I'm here to save the day.

excon

That articles spews that same talking points as you've been saying since this begun. There is nothing new there. Even excon has debunked most of them.

Actually, NO. All he did was ignore them and hope everyone else would too. He never actually addressed any of these points.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

You accuse the left of being dishonest, yet you have a GLARING hole in your argument... And, it's THIS hole that's at the center of the debate... Yet, you don't address it.. I wonder who's being intellictually dishonest. Ahhhh, never mind. I KNOW who's being dishonest...

And what is that hole?


I suppose there's a few UNINSURED people who might think that care is better in those places, because they're getting NO care here.

But they AREN'T getting no care. They are getting care just fine, they just aren't covered by INSURANCE. Which means they are either paying out of pocket or are receiving charity.


You keep saying that EVERYBODY here has health care, but that just isn't so.

Then prove it. You keep saying that they don't and yet you have never been able to show me a case where people COULD NOT GET HEALTH CARE USING ONE OF THE OPTIONS I DESCRIBED. You keep saying there are such people out there, who have TRIED to get care using these methods and failed. But you haven't been able to cite a single case in all these months of making that claim.

We on the right, however, have listed any number of cases where government systems have DENIED CARE to patients and those patients were left with NO OTHER OPTIONS.


You say people can get treated at the ER, for regular long term health care, but that just isn't so.

Not only is it so, but I have been a part of giving them that treatment. So has my brother, who is an MD. It happens all across the USA every day.


The sick uninsured people in this country, who need regular long term health care GO WITHOUT!!

No they don't. Not if they are willing to take one of the options that I suggest.


So, keep up with claptrap. I'm here to save the day.

Excon

Nah, you're just here to screw up the healthcare of the 97% of Americans who have good coverage that they are satisfied with in order to engate in social engineering, excon style.

But don't worry... it ain't going to happen. The American people see through the crap you and Obama make up to support your political agenda, and they ain't going to let the gubment get away with it.

Elliot

BTW, for all those who argue that the American Health Care system is bankrupting Americans who can't afford their health care, here's a bit of information for you:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/HealthInsuranceandBankruptcyRates.pdf

Turns out that Medical-related bankruptcies in Canada, where all their medical costs are supposedly taken care of, are not any lower than they are here in the USA.

So all those of you who think that socialized medicine is going to save you from bankruptcy, think again.

What was that about getting the best bang for the buck?

Elliot

BTW, for all those who argue that the American Health Care system is bankrupting Americans who can't afford their health care, here's a bit of information for you:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/HealthInsuranceandBankruptcyRates.pdf

Turns out that Medical-related bankruptcies in Canada, where all their medical costs are supposedly taken care of, are not any lower than they are here in the USA.Why yes they are. From one of the sources of the article:

The three leading causes of personal bankruptcy in Canada

The first one on the list of leading causes of bankruptcy in Canada is job loss, or reduced income in general. Losing your job or having your overtime reduced, for example, can make it increasingly difficult for you to make your debt payments.
Faced with a job loss, one of your keys to survival is reducing your expenses as quickly as possible to free up cash and continue servicing your debts. This is of course easier said than done, since you cannot quickly reduce your rent or car payments, but remember that reducing other expenses, whenever possible, is often the key to avoiding bankruptcy.
Another one of leading contributors to personal bankruptcy in Canada is marriage separation or divorce. Approximately one third of all people filing personal bankruptcy in Canada are either separated or divorced at the time of filing.
It's easy to see why separation and divorce can lead to financial problems. As a couple you only have to pay rent once, and you only have one phone bill, hydro bill, and you share most other expenses. Once you are separated, you are each paying your own bills, so your expenses increase, but your income stays the same.
If you have debts when you separate, your increased expenses may make it difficult to continue to service the debts.
The last on our list of leading causes of bankruptcy in Canada, are medical problems; they often can and do lead to a lot of financial problems. Fortunately, in Canada most of our medical expenses, such as hospital care, are covered by the government, unlike in the United States where medical bills for uninsured Americans are a leading cause of bankruptcy in America (http://www.bankruptcy-america.com/).
However, if you get sick or injured, and you are off work for a number of months, even with medical insurance your income is reduced, and that makes it more difficult to service your debts.

But you use the Frasier Institute as your source. --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_institute#Controversy

Hello again, El:

This is what the Lewin Group says on its website: "The Lewin Group is a premier national health care and human services consulting firm that has delivered objective analyses and strategic counsel to prominent public agencies, nonprofit organizations, industry associations and private companies across the United States for nearly 40 years. The Lewin Group does not advocate for any policy, program or legislation."

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

This is what the Fraisier Institute says on its website: "We are an independent international research and educational organization with offices in Canada and the United States and active research ties with similar independent organizations in more than 70 countries around the world."

We KNOW the Lewin Group is lying, because they are WHOLLY owned by United Health Care - the BIGGEST health insurer in the country... You righty's have been citing them as "independent" from the git go. Didja think we wouldn't find out?

I don't know who owns the Frasier Institute, but I somehow doubt the veracity of their website. You, of course, believe every scrap of drivel the insurance companies dish out.

excon

Democrats (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/08/26/kennedys-death-spurs-calls-to-pass-health-legislation/) and the media aren't waiting for his body to be cold before using his passing to further their health care agenda. But in the midst of it all comes this bit of good news... Camelot is not dead.

Barack Is The Last Kennedy Brother (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/26/msnbcs_matthews_barack_is_the_last_kennedy_brother .html)

Hello again, El:

This is what the Lewin Group says on its website: "The Lewin Group is a premier national health care and human services consulting firm that has delivered objective analyses and strategic counsel to prominent public agencies, nonprofit organizations, industry associations and private companies across the United States for nearly 40 years. The Lewin Group does not advocate for any policy, program or legislation."

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

This is what the Fraisier Institute says on its website: "We are an independent international research and educational organization with offices in Canada and the United States and active research ties with similar independent organizations in more than 70 countries around the world."

We KNOW the Lewin Group is lying, because they are WHOLLY owned by United Health Care - the BIGGEST health insurer in the country... You righty's have been citing them as "independent" from the git go. Didja think we wouldn't find out?

I dunno who owns the Frasier Institute, but I somehow doubt the veracity of their website. You, of course, believe every scrap of drivel the insurance companies dish out.

excon

This from the guy who thinks that Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic and Colombia give better health care than the USA because the World Health Organization said so. And then STICKS to that position after the idiocy of that position is made apparent. You're going to claim that I believe "every piece of drivel"?

Yeah... I'll take the Frazier Institute and the CATO institute any day of the week.

Elliot

Barack Is The Last Kennedy BrotherHello again, Steve:

And, in the nick of time, don't you think?

excon

Generation 3 is lurking .

This from the guy who thinks that Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic and Colombia give better health care than the USA because the World Health Organization said so. I've been to Costa Rica - "Pura Vida". It's wonderful. You wouldn't like it though.

About their healthcare system, people can do more reading here:
Costa Rica Health Care (http://www.strayreality.com/crhealthcare.htm)
Health Care in Costa Rica (http://www.internationalliving.com/Countries/Costa-Rica/Health-Care)
Costa Rica - Health Care (http://www.costarica.com/retirement/cost-of-living/health-care/)

I'm sure it's a wonderful place.

But if you had a choice between the USA and Costa Rica would you have heart surgery there or in the USA?

I've been to the Dominican Republic. I wouldn't get a splinter removed by their medical system, much less a major medical procedure. Would you?

Are you still going to defend the WHO report when it is so obviously WRONG?

Elliot

Actually I'm still trying to figure out who Obama is. The Lightworker, the Magic Negro, the new FDR, Mahatma Obama, the last Kennedy? Whoever he is he must have taken a step down in Chris Matthews' world. Now he's the "last Kennedy" where he used to give Chris a thrill up his leg because he was "bigger than Kennedy."

Generation 3 is lurking .

Perhaps. But they will never have the "romance" of Bobby, JFK and the rest of them. They are just pretenders to the throne of Camelot, even if they are Kennedys.

Are you still going to defend the WHO report when it is so obviously WRONG?Hello again, El:

YES, until you can show me more than ONE right wing American website that debunks this report that the ENTIRE WORLD thinks is right. I'm not as easy as you. It takes more than ONE source to convince me of anything. You? Not so much.

excon

Hello again, El:

YES, until you can show me more than ONE right wing American website that debunks this report that the ENTIRE WORLD thinks is right. I'm not as easy as you. It takes more than ONE source to convince me of anything. You? Not so much.

excon

I didn't exactly quote a "right wing" website, I think Cato calls themselves "market liberals" or something like that.

Hello again, El:

YES, until you can show me more than ONE right wing American website that debunks this report that the ENTIRE WORLD thinks is right. I'm not as easy as you. It takes more than ONE source to convince me of anything. You? Not so much.

excon

Fine. Then the next time you have a medical issue, I expect you on the first plane to Costa Rica or Colombia. Their care is better than ours and you deserve the very best, right? And the WHO report is telling you which countries give the best medical care.

Otherwise, don't claim to believe a report that you KNOW is is wrong and use it as a basis for your entire position on health care.

Elliot

Forget Costa Rica and Columbia. Lets talk about number 1 and number 37 because they are the only two numbers that matter right now. Read this link if you like.

France's model healthcare system - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/)

France Fights Universal Care's High Cost - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html#mod=whats_news_free?mod= igoogle_wsj_gadgv1)

Seems like just like in the US the French people are very loyal to the way things are according to that report.


On a different note did Rupert Murdoch ever buy the Wall Street Journal?

Forget Costa Rica and Columbia. Lets talk about number 1 and number 37 because they are the only two numbers that matter right now. Read this link if you like.

France's model healthcare system - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/)

Wait a second... we're supposed to believe that a report that got so many things wrong between #37 and #2 managed to get # 1 correct?

On what basis?

But if we're going to look at France's health care system, then let's do so. Let's talk about the fact that most French pay over 65% of their wealth to the government in the form of taxes for their "free" health care.

Let's talk about the fact that the French system is institutionally committing acts of racism by limiting care to certain "unwelcome" ethnic groups while giving that same care to "real French". There is a MASSIVE inequality of care in France based on ethnicity and religion.

Let's discuss the fact that France's MEDICAL OUTCOMES are not better than those of the USA. The USA actually beats France on survival and recovery rates for EVERY DISEASE, ILLNESS and THERAPY you would care to name.

Let's talk about prevetinve care... the fact that the USA beats France in providing preventive care. More of our women get breast cancer screenings, pap smears, etc. More of our men get colo-rectal-cancer screenings, pancreatic cancer screenings, prostate cancer screenings, etc. More people in the USA get regular checkups. More people in the USA get annual stress tests and annual EKGs to monitor heart health.

In short, the French system does NOT privide better care than the USA by any reasonable criterion, from equality of care, to access to preventive care, to medical outcomes. And it COSTS MORE than ours in terms of what the average person pays in taxes in France, vs what we pay here in premiums.

Is that the model you support?

(My statements about accessibility of preventive care and medical outsomes comes from a study by Lancet comparing medical care in various countries to the USA's system. My statements about equality of care come from the Eurocare-4 report on the state of health care in Europe.)

Elliot

Et if your employer doesn't give you Health Insurance in America How much wealth do people spend on it?

Stand outside a McDonald's or really anywhere in America and you have the answer to why the US does more EKG's and stress test.

It hasn't been all that long since certain people were denied care in hospitals in America.

Et if your employer doesn't give you Health Insurance in America How much wealth do people spend on it?

For an individual? Probably $500/month. For a family about $1500/month.

That's $18,000/year for a family. Assuming a $45,000 average salary, that's roughly 40% of income. Add the current 20% tax braket for middle-income wage earners, and between taxes and health insurance premiums, the average person would be paying 60% of their salary. STILL less than the 65% of the French.

However, here's the kicker... 85% of all Americans DO get health insurance from an employer for which they pay much less than 100% of the cost. Which means that the actual cost to 85% of Americans is MUCH LESS than the 65% the French pay.

The cost of health care to individuals is LOWER in the USA than it is in France.


Stand outside a McDonald's or really anywhere in America and you have the answer to why the US does more EKG's and stress test.

No. That is the reason they NEED them. The reason we are able to do them is better accessibility.

And guess what... in the USA, thin people can get stress tests and EKGs too. You don't even have to be sick OR fat to get it. It is called PREVENTIVE care.


It hasn't been all that long since certain people were denied care in hospitals in America.

True. EMTALA was enacted in 1986. But it is the law now. France has no such law... and takes advantage of certain people because of it.

So again I ask, is that the model you are willing to support over ours?

Elliot

PS: I happen to know the cost of out-of-pocket health insurance because I happen to be paying out of pocket right now for my coverage. This information is very much a part of my existence right now.

And despite shelling out $1500/month, I'd STILL take our system over France's any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

ET,
Why don't you help people with the knowledge you have? You could help here: Health Insurance - Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/health-insurance/)

I had a feeling you did so I knew you would give a straight answer. So you put out 1500 a month. Doesn't it make you a little mad that you still have to pay co-pays, get generic drugs not name brand, and still could be denied some type of treatment. You are paying for something and you still may not get what you want.

True skinny people do get Stress test etc. But if a third of the country wasn't obese I think we would have a lot less.

I am not saying get Frances health care system here and run with it. I am saying look at what works and how it can be applied here. Look at all the health care system and pick what works and what doesn't.

ET,
Why don't you help people with the knowledge you have? You could help here: Health Insurance - Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/health-insurance/)

Answer: I'm not a licensed insurance guy. I'm an analyst and a policy guy. My wife, who holds an MPA in Public Health Administration wouldn't be able to give much help there either, because she's ALSO not a licensed insurance person.

I don't know product. I know POLICY. I know statistical analysis. I know historical data. But I would be completely useless in helping people determine what products they need or how much life insurance they should buy.

(Personally I just go with 10x salary for life insurance, but the experts have more in-depth ways of determining how much insurance you need. That's why they're licensed and I'm not.)

I know what I know and I stiock to it.

As Clint Eastwood says, "A man's got to know his limitations."

Elliot

I had a feeling you did so I knew you would give a straight answer. So you put out 1500 a month. Doesn't it make you a little mad that you still have to pay co-pays, get generic drugs not name brand, and still could be denied some type of treatment. You are paying for something and you still may not get what you want.

Yes, it sometimes does.

However, the alternative with government-run single-payer insurance is that if I am denied, I HAVE NO OPTIONS.

In the current system, if my insurance denies me the service or product I need, I have the option of buying that service or product myself. Or obtaining it through a charity. There are options. Those options may be expensive, and paying the extra cost may piss me off.

But in a single-payer system, if I am denied that product or service I have no other option to obtain it. If the seervice or product is delayed due to long lines, I have no other option for getting it.

I would rather have a system where I am forced to pay more than I really want in order to get what I need to stay healthy or get better than have a system where I cannot obtain what I need no matter what I'm willing to pay.

There's a reason that so many Canadians come over the border to the USA for their medical care. If they were denied the care in Canada, they have no other way of obtaining it. If they are being forced to wait on lines until the treatment becomes available, they STILL have no other way of obtaining. The only one allowed to pay for a medical service in Canada is the government.

Whereas, if I am denied care by my insurance, I can STILL get that treatment by paying for it myself. Yes, I'll be angry about it. And I will probably challenge my insurance company on it. And if I don't get satisfaction, I might change insurance companies.

But better the option of being angry than no option at all.


True skinny people do get Stress test etc. But if a third of the country wasn't obese I think we would have a lot less.

I HOPE not. Hopefully if 1/3 of the country wasn't obese, we'd just have fewer stress tests that come back POSITIVE and more that come back NEGATIVE. I would hope that the country getting healthier didn't result in a reduction of preventive health care.


I am not saying get Frances health care system here and run with it. I am saying look at what works and how it can be applied here. Look at all the health care system and pick what works and what doesn't.

That I can agree with.

But here's the kicker... any part that has the government involved is the part that doesn't work.

Australia has a good two-tier government/private system. So does Israel. The government system covers CATASTROPHIC CARE ONLY, maybe with a few odds and ends added in after that. But basically it's catastrophic care. Anything over and above that, you pay for private/supplemental insurance.

I would be willing to look at government-run catastrophic care.

But we already HAVE catastrophic care in the USA. Between the EMTALA law and the provisions of Medicaid (for the impoverished) and Medicare (for the elderly and disabled), free clinics (some of which are government-run), charitable foundations for medical aid, the COBRA laws, etc. we already have a pretty good catastrophic-care option in place. And I'm all in favor of improving that catastrophic care by fixing the rules in Medicare and Medicaid and COBRA and EMTALA to help those who fall through their cracks.

But I am against giving the government more power than that. When a government has more power than that, that's when we, the average joes have historically gotten screwed by the government.

True health care reform, as I have said before, has to come from other places.

We need tort reform. Tort reform alone would lower the costs of medical care by as much as 60%. We could use the Texas model, which created a panel that decides whether medical malpractice cases have merit BEFORE they ever get to trial. In the past two years, this has resulted in an influx of doctors into Texas, lower malpractice insurance premiums, a decrease in defensive medicine, and an across-the-board decrease in medical expenses.

We can lower the cost of health care instantly by making health costs (including insurance premiums, copays, out of pocket costs, etc.) tax free. That equates to a roughly 30% decrease in the cost of health care in real dollars.

We can increase health insurance portability between states and open up insurance companies to competition. Right now someone living in a state can only buy medical insurance in that state. Some states only have one or two insurance companies. That limits competition and drives up costs. By changing those rules, we increase competition and lower insurance premium costs almost instantly... and can count on better service as well.

We can change the laws to allow for "build-your-own-policy" insurance systems. You pay a basic (very low) amount for catastrophic care, and then buy the additional options you want for yourself and your family. You pay ONLY for what you need, and get only what you want. If you want wellcare visits for your children, but don't want to pay for massage therapy that you're never going to use, you can do that, and end up paying less than for a policy that has "everything" except the option to opt out. That would make at least catastrophic or basic care MUCH MORE ACCESSIBLE to low income families and decrease the number of uninsured.

We can lower taxes in general in order to increase disposable income, and make insurance more affordable to everyone.

We need to look at DEREGULATING the medical industry not increasing the regulations. The largest cost to any hospital, health care provider, etc. after medical malpractice costs is the cost of compliance with government regulations. I spent 3 years working for a large NY State-run hospital in Hospital Administration. I saw the numbers. It was stagering how much a hospital, even a well-run hospital, spends on complaince issues. Ditto for drug companies, and insurance companies. I'm not saying we should have NO regulation, but what we've got now is overkill, and it's hurting the American people. We need to lower those regulatory costs.

We need to DE-UNIONIZE the hospitals. Right now, a union-shop hospital essentially has the same problem that GM and Chrystler had before their banruptcies. Union hospitals pay for THREE WORKFORCES: The one that is currently working, the pensions for the ones that retired in the past 20 years, and the pensions of those who retired MORE than 20 years ago. Plus the union payments they have to make. Plus the cost of redundancy of employment required by union contracts. (Unions force employers to have two employees for some positions where just one employee would be sufficient. That's one of the tricks unions use to keep their annual dues up.) The health care employment costs associated with unions is astronomical, and just as that model could not be sustained by GM and Chrystler, it cannot be sustained by the medical community either. This needs to be reformed.

Since private insurance is cheaper when you have group coverage, let everyone who is collecting unemployment insurance in every state form their own group via the state unemployment office. This group can then find the group coverage that suits them best. Even if they have to pay out of pocket, they'll be paying group rates that are cheaper than trying to pay the individual rate. (Or as an alternative, allow the formation of insurance co-ops NOT RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT, which amounts to essentially the same thing.) This is a VERY viable option for lowering costs, especially in these economic times.

As an ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT, the government could give uninsured citizens a stipend to pay for their health insurance (adjustable based on family size). It could be in the form of a check or in the form of a health care voucher accepted by insurance companies. This stipend would have a time limitation built in so that it doesn't become an "evergreen" welfare program. But it will give families some time to get their feet back under them after a job loss that lasts more than a couple of months by allowing them to purchase the insurance plan of their choice. It is NOT meant to be a permanent benefit and should have a cut-off of, say, 18 months or 2 years. After that, you're on COBRA and pay for your insurance yourself.

You see, there are a lot of options to look at other than government-run health care models. We need to stop looking at France, the UK, Canada, Belgium and any other country for our "model" and build our OWN model based on good, strong, effective free-market principals. We don't need to model ourselves on other countries, and we CERTAINLY don't have to completely change a system that works over 90% of the time for over 90% of the people. The sledgehammer approach to fixing health care (destroy the entire system in order to replace it with a new one) can't work. But we have options that CAN work and have worked in the past when they were allowed to and weren't interfered with from the outside.

I'm not against reforming our health care system, Spitvenom. I'm against THE PROPOSALS COMING FROM THE LEFT, because there are better, more effective reforms available that allow more personal freedom and still lower cost and increase accessibility.

Elliot

Yup health care is so expensive but ,so is food... how much of a typical family budget goes to food and shelter . Yet no one argues that the tax payer should pay for the food my family eats or to put a roof over my head .

What makes health care the exception ? I don't get it .

Yes ;there are programs in place for those who cannot provide for themselves ,There is no reason for anyone in this country to not have food shelter and health care . The safety nets are in place for those who cannot do for themselves.

Despite the constant drum beating about the number of uninsured ;it is not a true number . Less than 10% of the population are the permanently uninsured . Many of them need to be directed to the programs in place . But if we assume that the system neglects 10% of the population ,it still doesn't justify taking a wrcking ball to the existing system.

That's the way I see it .

Oh ;btw ,did you know that tucked into HR3200 is a provision to provide $10 billion so unionized workers from the zombie auto industry can keep the same gold plated health care benefits that helped destroy the industry in the 1st place .But the cool part is that the gvt. Will assume 80 cents on the dollar of benefits... get that?? We get to use our hard earned money to pay for them keep their top of the line coverage .
Now you know the quid pro quo the Dems promised for labor support .

yup health care is so expensive but ,so is food ....how much of a typical family budget goes to food and shelter . yet no one argues that the tax payer should pay for the food my family eats or to put a roof over my head .

Two words:

FOOD STAMPS

Here is the only thing I look at. According to the World Health Organization the US is ranked 37. Something needs to be fixed. If France is ranked number 1 then maybe we should check out what they are doing. The link below shows all the rankings.

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)

The methodologic flaws for the WHO rankings have been exposed.


If you really want specific MEDICAL evaluation of care try this [ it may help your insomnia ]


The Quality of Cancer Care: Does the Literature Support the Rhetoric? by Bruce E. Hillner and Thomas J. Smith - Institute of Medicine (http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3798/12774/12799.aspx)


Page 26





In contrast,
The British have focused on system factors associated with their national health system that show
Disturbing variation and have been the impetus for a national reorganization of cancer care.




Page 27-28





An important recent report from Canada addressed care between 1983-1990 at five Edmonton
Hospitals of 683 patients treated by 52 surgeons for rectal cancer. 89 Five surgeons had specific
Fellowship training in colorectal surgery. After adjusting for known clinical factors, the
Multivariate analysis showed that local recurrence and disease specific survival were both
Adversely affected by being cared for my a non-specialty trained surgeon or low-volume surgeon
Page 27 of 80
(less than an 3 cases per year on average). Local recurrence is an especially strong indicator of
Surgical technique and a much more disastrous (essentially untreatable) event than local
Recurrence in breast cancer. The hazard rates for local recurrence were 2.5 and disease free
Survival of 1.4-1.5 if not specialty trained or a low-volume surgeon.




Only 5 of 52 Canadian surgeons had enough cases and training in surgery for cancer and this leads to worse outcomes.


And if you think the IOM is some right wing organization funded by the health insurance industry


Saving 100,000 lives | Health Care > Health Care Facilities from AllBusiness.com (http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/non-profit-businesses/4094996-1.html)




G&P

Two words:

FOOD STAMPS

Yup that is part of the safety net I described . Still the argument being forwarded by those who want universal coverage is the equivalent that everyone in the country is entitled to those food stamps.

IF the public option or co-op or whatever name they tag to government / non- private health insurance gets passed: I predict that
1] private health insurance will still survive and maybe flourish
2] the inequities in healthcare will widen between those on public vs private insurance.

Why?


The privates will "cherry pick" the most healthy, and or the wealthiest [ those that can afford private insurance and pay taxes to the public system at the same time ]. If congress does not stop them from doing it.

The less wealthy will make the calculation to save by being on the public system. The very sick and those with chronic illnesses will also decide this way. The public system will be overwhelmed by new enrollees, less doctors [ there already is shortages and many already do not accept medicaid and or medicare ], and increases usage [ that comes when nothing or relatively little comes out of pocket when using a service ], This will lead to rationing and longer and longer wait lines. Then those that can, will pay for private insurance to alleviate the shortcomings in the public system.
HOw do I know this? People already pay for supplemental insurance even though they are on medicare. Veterans that can, have private insurance. Some go to VA only for meds or to "stay in the system."






G&P

At least doctors take oaths to do no harm.

Great pity they don't extend that to the purse of their patients

IF the public option or co-op or whatever name they tag to government / non- private health insurance gets passed: I predict that
1] private health insurance will still survive and maybe flourish
2] the inequities in healthcare will widen between those on public vs private insurance.

why?


The privates will "cherry pick" the most healthy, and or the wealthiest [ those that can afford private insurance and pay taxes to the public system at the same time ]. If congress does not stop them from doing it.

The less wealthy will make the calculation to save by being on the public system. The very sick and those with chronic illnesses will also decide this way. The public system will be overwhelmed by new enrollees, less doctors [ there already is shortages and many already do not accept medicaid and or medicare ], and increases usage [ that comes when nothing or relatively little comes out of pocket when using a service ], This will lead to rationing and longer and longer wait lines. Then those that can, will pay for private insurance to alleviate the shortcomings in the public system.
HOw do I know this? People already pay for supplemental insurance even though they are on medicare. Veterans that can, have private insurance. Some go to VA only for meds or to "stay in the system."

G&P

Great pity you are so cynical. I live under a dual system and it is not the end of the Earth. I remember 30 years ago when The government took over health care. It was to be the end of the world as we know it. But the funds still survive and everyone can afford medical care. Yes the funds are smaller than perhaps they once were but everyone makes a contribution in some form unless they are unemployed. The cost of insurance isn't thousands of dollars a year.The funds in a dual system can't afford to be too selective if they want to stay in business, in fact competition has sharpened their game. The way it works is this, you need a elective surgery right away and you are insured you go to a private hospital, There is no haggling about the standard of care or what procedure you need, if you need emergency you go to emergency and if you can't afford insurance and you need elective surgery you wait for a bed in a public hospital, otherwise you see you local doctor and the cost is covered. Now what is wrong with something like that where you are. Could this system be better, of course it could, the hospital system is a little streached but there is no excuse for not getting medical care

Great pity you are so cynical. I live under a dual system and it is not the end of the Earth. I remember 30 years ago when The government took over health care. It was to be the end of the world as we know it. But the funds still survive and everyone can afford medical care. Yes the funds are smaller than perhaps they once were but everyone makes a contribution in some form unless they are unemployed. The cost of insurance isn't thousands of dollars a year.The funds in a dual system can't afford to be too selective if they want to stay in business, in fact competition has sharpened their game. The way it works is this, you need a elective surgery right away and you are insured you go to a private hospital, There is no haggling about the standard of care or what procedure you need, if you need emergency you go to emergency and if you can't afford insurance and you need elective surgery you wait for a bed in a public hospital, otherwise you see you local doctor and the cost is covered. Now what is wrong with something like that where you are. Could this system be better, of course it could, the hospital system is a little streached but there is no excuse for not getting medical care


I'm glad it works down there.

Obama has changed his language to portray private health insurance as the bad guys, when they are not always that. His plan may have the ironic unintended effect of making the private health insurance industry wealthier.

I don't know if a dual system would be acceptable to the liberals here in the US. They cannot get beyond playing the class envy card to actually accept that to some degree you can buy yourself better care, Michael Jackson notwithstanding.

I'm not being cynical, but realistic, because a good percentage of people on Medicare or the VA system do feel the need to have private insurance.

In addition, Australia has a smaller population, and probably less ethinic diversity, so accurate direct comparisons would be difficult to make.





G&P

I'm glad it works down there.

In addition, Australia has a smaller population, and probably less ethinic diversity, so accurate direct comparisons would be difficult to make.

G&P

I agree direct comparisons are difficult, and it doesn't work here all the time; sometimes hospitals have been found to be negligent. Population isn't the question, that's just a matter of scale, the issues are really about who's going to pay and how. Truth is you can't have government based health care and no change in the tax regime, sooner or later it will catch up, but if, for say 2% surcharge, you were guaranteed care anywhere in the country and additional insurance was optional to cover the extras, is it a bad deal? I think you might have paranoia about taxes over there when really your taxes are relatively low. From an outsiders point of view there seems to be a real issue of cost and only government can deal with that. Implemention of a government scheme certainly put a cap on costs here by providing the public with a benchmark on what is a reasonable charge. We are very much into keeping the bastards honest.

As to ethnic diversity, I think we are possibly the most ethnicly diverse nation on Earth. If by ethnicly diverse you think that we don't have a large african or hispanic population you are right, but we have migrants from everywhere and refugees too as well as an aboriginal population, and a high proportion of New Zealanders/pacific islanders. Who would have though we would have had Somali's planning a terrorist attack, but that's another story. We even have multi-lingual publication of government advisories. Many of the workers in our health system, particularly doctors, are of ethnic background. I really don't see how ethnic diversity is an issue when providing health care unless you have a very large illegal population, when I suppose other issues cut across health delivery.

In I haven't had insomnia for a long long long time. A natural plant took care of that. I do my best to stay away from really any pharmaceuticals. That's not to say I don't take an antibiotic when I have an infection. My mom was a hippie and cooked all weird natural stuff for me when I was a kid. I never had mac and cheese until I was 20.

In I haven't had insomnia for a long long long time. A natural plant took care of that.

Yeah, I can see that working.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Cannabis_flowering.jpg/295px-Cannabis_flowering.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Cannabis_flowering.jpg)

:D

Elliot

I hate to say it but that's a good looking plant.

That is a good looking plant!

Getting back to "big questions about health care," CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml) of all media outlets is helping argue the point we've been making for some time now:


One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details.

McCullagh misses the point that many of the details are yet to be worked out by the enormous bureaucracy created by the legislation, but nonetheless he catches another troubling aspect of the current bill:


Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.

Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."

I agree with McCullah that maybe this is bad or maybe not. But I also agree that "this vignette should be reason to be skeptical of claims that a massive and complex bill must be enacted so rapidly as its backers would have you believe." The fact that it gives an agency carte blanche to nose through the records of people who haven't asked for anything is not good.

Now we have it from Howard the Deaniac on why tort reform isn't in the reform plan, they're afraid of trial lawyers (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Dean-says-Obamacare-authors-dont-want-to-challenge-trial-lawyers-55140567.html)...


Whatever else he said Wednesday evening at the town hall hosted by Rep. Jim Moran, D-VA, former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate Howard Dean let something incredibly candid slip out about President Obama's health-care reform bill in Congress.

Asked by an audience member why the legislation does nothing to cap medical malpractice class-action lawsuits against doctors and medical institutions (aka "Tort reform"), Dean responded by saying: “The reason tort reform is not in the [health care] bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that’s the plain and simple truth.”

The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years.".Hello again, Steve:

Correction, 228 years!

I've said it before. Your outrage is too little too late. I don't understand how you're SOOOO bummed that the IRS is going to disclose your tax data, but you don't give two hoots if the NSA reads ALL your emails and listens to ALL your phone calls?? Don't make no sense to me...

Of course, the Wolverine will argue lamely that they don't read ALL the emails, as though that makes it just fine that they collect them... He'll also tell you that if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to fear from the government tromping through all your very personal and private data.

So, I wonder why it bothers you so much about the IRS.

excon

Well, at least Dean is being honest about it. Got to give him credit for that much at least.

I wonder, though, how much this statement is going to endear him to those same trial lawyers.

Hello again, Steve:

Correction, 228 years!

I've said it before. Your outrage is too little too late. I don't understand how you're SOOOO bummed that the IRS is gonna disclose your tax data, but you don't give two hoots if the NSA reads ALL your emails and listens to ALL your phone calls???? Don't make no sense to me...

Of course, the Wolverine will argue lamely that they don't read ALL the emails, as though that makes it just fine that they collect them.... He'll also tell you that if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to fear from the government tromping through all your very personal and private data.

So, I wonder why it bothers you so much about the IRS.

excon

You sit there and talk about the problems of government looking at your private documents. So your solution to the problem of a lack of privacy is to give them more ammo.

What a brilliant solution.

Whether I agree with you or not on the CIA or the NSA is irrelevant. Forget what I think. What I think is irrelevant to YOUR position. YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE BIGGEST PRIVACY ISSUES AND COMPLAINTS ABOUT GOVERNMENT VIOLATING YOUR RIGHTS. You never stop complaining about it, even when it is justified. And your solution is to give them more of a chance to do so.

And you can't even recognize the craziness of your position.

Elliot

What Elliot said.

And you can't even recognize the craziness of your position.Hello again, El:

The GOVERNMENT already HAS your tax data. What the government DIDN'T have before the dufus, and your unabashed support for his policies, was your EMAILS, your PHONE CALLS and the very posts you're making right now.

And, you call me crazy. DUDE!

excon

Hello again:

Although I have found the right to health care in the Ninth Amendment, lots of you don't think so... Maybe the sick fall under the civil rights act.

Should a sick person be discriminated against?

excon

Yeah, I can see that working.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Cannabis_flowering.jpg/295px-Cannabis_flowering.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Cannabis_flowering.jpg)

:D

Elliot

I knew you were smoking something Elliot:)

Can you hear that? It's the sound of your feet marching in unison with your neighbors in line to your "re-education" camp.

You asked for change you've got it.. now wipe those tears and stop sniveling wondering how you could possibly be living in a time when Martial Law is in effect and curfews are enforced.. BECAUSE this is the future you voted for..

All hail, "CHANGE"...

Hello again, El:

The GOVERNMENT already HAS your tax data.

And you're going to give them our medical records too.

What a smart idea for a guy who's afraid of the government knowing too much about him.


What the government DIDN'T have before the dufus, and your unabashed support for his policies, was your EMAILS, your PHONE CALLS and the very posts you're making right now.

ECHELON, the computer program that monitors phone calls, e-mails and electronic communications has been around since the 80s with various upgrades. Hate to tell you this, excon, but the government has been "listening" to your phone calls since the 80s... long before Bush was President. The only thing that Bush did wa make that practice both publicly known and LEGAL in certain circumstance. Bush didn't create the system. You're still stuck in BDS.


And, you call me crazy. DUDE!

Excon

Yep. Because anyone who claims to be afraid of the government knowing too much about them, but who then advocates giving the government MORE INSTANTANEOUS (REAL TIME) INFORMATION about your bank accounts, brokerage accounts, AND medical records, IN ADDITION TO THE ACCESS TO YOUR TAX RECORDS THEY ALREADY HAVE is just plain nuts.

If you feel that the government has too much access, why on Earth would you want the government to have MORE access than they have now? That is the question you refuse to answer. You keep trying to deflect the question. If what the government has access to right now is TOO MUCH, then why do you condone giving them MORE ACCESS?

I suspect you cannot answer this question, and I suspect it bothers you as much as it does me. But you drank the koolaid, you're stuck on the bandwagon, and you can't admit that your position on the health care bill is untennable with your general philosophy and political bent. You painted yourself into a corner by both supporting Obama and ranting against Bush. And now you can't admit that your position on government-run health care and your libertarian/anti-government-interferance/privacy-rights bent don't jive with each other.

Elliot

The only thing that Bush did wa make that practice both publicly known and LEGAL in certain circumstance. Bush didn't create the system. You're still stuck in BDS.Hello again, El:

You're WRONG, of course. FISA is really a law, and the dufus really broke it. He said so himself. I think he called it quaint, and said that it didn't work any more. So, he did something else... I'll document it for you again, if you like...

I notice above, that you JUSTIFY the NSA snooping, and you're not bothered by it, no matter WHO started it... THAT was my point... So, if I'm crazy because I don't mind the government sharing my tax information with ANOTHER part of government, then you're just as crazy because you don't mind that they gather up your emails and phone calls.

However, one must weigh the craziness with the seriousness of the privacy violations... If one did that, you're 25 times crazier than me.

excon

Hello again, El:

You're WRONG, of course. FISA is really a law, and the dufus really broke it. He said so himself. I think he called it quaint, and said that it didn't work any more. So, he did something else... I'll document it for you again, if you like...

Actually, he didn't break the law, because under the war powers act, he had the authority to do as he did during times of a declared war. I know you don't want to admit that Congress voted for a war declaration, but they did so TWICE. FISA goes out the window when it comes to fighting a war. It has no application to war-time law.

Now... if Bush had used ECHELON to listen in on the Mob and used that information to prosecute the Mob, he would be in violation of FISA. But he didn't do that. He used it to defend the country.

Keep in mind that FISA is about arresting criminals and prosecuting them. Bush wasn't trying to ARREST or PROSECUTE anyone. He was fighting a war, capturing or killing enemies of the USA, and setting up a defensive strategy (so far an effective one) to stop any terrorists from attacking the USA. FISA doesn't apply.

And then, there's the USA Patriot Act, which gave Bush the specific powers that he used. A law passed by Congress. A law that has EQUAL STANDING with FISA. And a law that is applicable to RUNNING A WAR rather than CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

Ergo, Bush didn't break any laws.


I notice above, that you JUSTIFY the NSA snooping, and you're not bothered by it, no matter WHO started it... THAT was my point... So, if I'm crazy because I don't mind the government sharing my tax information with ANOTHER part of government, then you're just as crazy because it's just hunky dory with you that they gather up your emails and phone calls.

However, one must weigh the craziness with the seriousness of the privacy violations... If one did that, you're 25 times crazier than me.

Excon

Again, you are avoiding the question.

I am OK with the government having information about me. They already have the information and haven't abused it. They COULD abuse it, I guess, but I haven't seen a single example of them doing so. So I'm OK with it.

YOU are the one who is against them having information about you.

So why are you in favor of giving them MORE information?

My position is in COMPLETE AGREEMENT ACROSS THE BOARD.

Yours is contradictory and you can't explain it. But you keep saying that I'm the crazy one.

Please explain the contradiction in your positions:
1) You are against the government having your personal information.
2) You are willing to give the government access to your personal information.

I don't care who is crazy. That is not the point. I admit to being the crazier of the tqo of us... otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time with you this way.

I just want you to explain how you justify these two mutually exclusive positions. And if you cannot, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate those positions.

Just answer the question. Or admit you can't.

Elliot