The American Spectator

Appleby| 6.19.09 @ 9:20AM

Laying aside the weariness I feel at repeating the same counter-arguments to every Pro-Socialist Medicine statistics-quoter, may I say once again that the reason for the higher infant mortality figures in the USA is that IN THE USA WE SAVE BABIES THAT IN SOCIALIST COUNTRIES ARE ALLOWED TO DIE AT OR BEFORE BIRTH. That is, there are more "high risk" babies who get to live AT ALL in the USA, than there are in Canada (where I live).

There is also the dirty little Canadian secret that a great many of our high-risk babies are saved ONLY BECAUSE they are transported two hours away to the USA where their lives can and will be saved instead of being allowed to die in Canada.

There is a good reason why 80% of the population of Canada is located within two hours of the USA border.

P.S. The reason for the higher death rate in the USA is due to (1) the large number of Gangstas represented and (2) Detroit and DC.

Remove those two cities, correct for the percentage of Persons of Colour blowing off each others' heads for "dissing" somebody by wearing a hat they don't like, and the average lifespan in the USA will rise significantly. Murders among Gangstas in Atlanta were so routine while I was living there, that most of them did not even make the news. We don't so far have that in much of Canada, save in certain parts of large cities and in Winnipeg.

Alice Moore| 6.19.09 @ 9:23AM

To Suzanne Shobe:

I sympathize with your situation. However, I don't understand your solution. All people agree that the problem with health care is access. Many problems with the health care system lie with the fact that the insurance companies are the customers, not the patients. I've seen this first hand; working in the health care field. The Democrats' solution will be to make the US government the customer.

Right now, you've mentioned that there is no plan available to yourself. With a government plan you certainly will be paying for a plan, but, you may have even less access to health care. The generic drugs that you mentioned are a free market innovation. You may not have even that with a government plan.

Insurance companies of today may employ a doctor or a nurse to help make recommendations. The flaw with this approach is that they do not know the patient. With the government a doctor or a nurse would probably have less if any input. Think your local USPS.

The company you work for probably would welcome off loading insurance requirements to the government. Their reasons are different from your own. The ClintonCare model of the 1990s ran aground because businesses could not offload the obligation.

The free market with the patient as customer. would be superior to the one with government as customer.

BTW, I'm in a demographic that's not far behind your own and have similar concerns. That I can buy prescriptions and BYPASS insurance costs is a plus to myself. The key would be to have the health care field like this. Best of Luck.

Appleby| 6.19.09 @ 9:37AM

Just FYI, socialist medicine in Canada does not pay for prescription drugs at all, not for anybody, not nohow.

Appleby| 6.19.09 @ 9:42AM

p.s. to Dr. Reich: You must get over the idea that socialist medicine is about health care. Socialist medicine is about POWER. And the passive-aggressive socialist is not so much interested in receiving health care as he is in denying it to TheRich. The average socialist is happy to have his daughter die on a waiting list so long as the daughter of a rich man dies five minutes sooner.

Only, of course, the rich man's daughter gets treatment -- in the USA.

SLG| 6.19.09 @ 9:49AM

Appreciate Mr. Tarai's comments, also noting the inept Republican insistance that "all's okay." It's not, obviously.
Now whether it's stupidly high "administrative" costs, insurance company crap, governmental regulations (or the lack thereof in regard to Illegal Aliens sucking us dry), or doctors playing CYA with humungous numbers of unnecessary "tests," I don't know.
I do know, however, that a trip to an Emergency Room after an accident involved a nurse and a PA (never saw a doctor, apparently wasn't required) who gave me 49 stitches....
Forgot the details, but the bill was somewhere between 5 and 6 THOUSAND dollars!
For 49 stitches (yeah, a tetnus shot and X-rays to be sure there was nothing left inside...)?
The "best health care system in the world" needs a whole big bunch of improvement(s), really.

David Govett| 6.19.09 @ 9:53AM

We should look forward to partisan politicians having access to our medical records. Then they will be able to perfect a cutting-edge, two-tier system of medical care: better for supporters of the party in power, worse for the unevolved supporters of that other party. The Founding Fathers would be proud of us.

JerseyJ| 6.19.09 @ 12:03PM

David thinks ... "The "best health care system in the world" needs a whole big bunch of improvement(s), really. "

Which may be accurate. I would venture to say the single biggest improvement needed is tort reform.

That said, improvement is in the eye of the beholder. Would it be an "improvement" if another 3 or 4 million people got access to some form of care but at the cost of everyone's level of care being cut in half?

Would it be an "improvement" if the fees that providers are permitted to charge were cut in half but you were forced to wait two days to get those stiches?

My point is this ... Don't just think that the government doing SOMETHING constitutes an improvement. Just because you think SOMETHING must be done, don't for a minute think whatever that something is won't make things worse.

"Sir, I see you put a nail through your hand so we're going to amputate your foot because we've got to do SOMETHING."

Klabautermann| 6.19.09 @ 1:11PM

Paul Tarai, it appears that you have spent quite some effort compiling your statistics. The U.S. obviously fairs the worst. I am thinking of emigrating to New Zealand. My only question is; why are not all life expectancies the same in the socialized countries you mention? Could there be other variables you have not considered. I’d like to refer you to a paper presented to the American Public Health Association by Ruben Rumbaut and John Weeks. (See WSJ February 1, 1995, Infant Morality, Morther’s Morality.) They point out that infant mortality rates for Vietnamese immigrant were 5.5 deaths per 1,000 live births. African-American women had rates of 16.3 deaths per 1,000. New Zealanders are not Canadians, Americans are not British, and African Americans are not Vietnamese.

SLG| 6.19.09 @ 2:22PM

Amen, JerseyJ. Absolutely right. And right after I pushed the "send" button, know I'd left out that one very important item -- but the dog needed walking, and I kinda knew that some bright person would catch it. Again, amen.

SLG| 6.19.09 @ 2:24PM

--(talking about the very necessary TORT REFORM above in my last missive.........)--

Alan Brooks| 6.19.09 @ 8:51PM

the national medical debate is leaving out something: don't forget that though biotech may have fizzled somewhat here, the Chicoms and others are quite willing to 'progress'.

Patrick Spooner| 6.20.09 @ 5:24AM

How could anyone with a working brain say that government involvement in health care is a good thing - they either are ignorant or just plain stupid - just look at how government has bankrupted social security, mediacid, medicare and the postal service! I fo one would rather go it alone than be subjected to a federal bureaucrat whose only reason for being involved in rationing health care services is his personal realtionship to a politician!