The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 3 of 3)

1. Can you spell Medicare? (That addresses the "improved results" point.)

2. Are you aware that Medicare goes broke in the very near future? (That addresses the "limiting costs" point.)

Open and honest debate requires all of the facts be presented, not just the ones we find convenient.
-- Patti Knuth
Portage, Michigan

Paul Tarai demands and "open and honest debate…not lies" regarding the health care debate. Well, I welcome that, but I think Paul's case would be better served if he practiced what he demands a bit more. Given the copious amount of detailed "data" the U.S. government keeps on various statistics regarding our humanity in this nation, a shallow look at various demographic differences between this nation and, say, the U.K., Canada, or New Zealand would raise numerous red flags for a junior level statistician. I work for a living so I don't have time to dig up all the important details left out of Paul's summary statistics but I will hit the high points and leave the "devil in the details" to the professional statisticians in the group.

First, the "per capita health care spending" figures are worthless unless they are adjusted for the per capita standard of wage and living in each country. Are they? If not then all they represent is the higher per capita standard of living in each country which is consistent with the per capita income levels in each country, nothing more.  If Paul seeks the lowest per capita spending as a measure of the cost effectiveness of health care in any country then Rwanda would be a better place to start his search for a better health care provider.

Second, the "total health care spending as a percent of GDP" suffers the same core problem as no. 1, plus it completely overlooks that millions, if not tens of millions, of non citizens who come to this country for our health care technology each year -- while not a fraction of that can be said for all three socialist countries you compare us to combined. It is also worth noting that the higher the standard of living (per capita wages, etc.), the higher the per capita spending and percentage of GDP. That's what your per capita expenditures reflect, nothing more. See where Rwanda is on this chart for per cent GDP.

Third, your infant mortality rates and life expectancy comparisons both suffer the same flaw. They make one rather large assumption that the demographics of all four countries are comparable. They are not by a long shot. If you compare the "white" demographics of all four countries you will find similarities. Since the U.K., Canada, and New Zealand have the non white demographics of, say, Maine, one might expect if one actually looked at the different vital statistics between various ethnic groups you would find our demographics a bit more impacted by that portion of our population that can be ethnically identified and measured as being significantly more challenged to live a long and prosperous life. Put politely, my "poor" white Appalachian relatives live a lot longer and healthier lives than similar "poor" non whites in inner cities because they have a different cultural value system that puts a premium on making the right life style choices over living the motto, "live fast, die young and have a good looking corpse." The government and insurance industry has buildings full of details on how life style choices impact one’s chances of reaching 65.

Fourth, you apparently haven't had many dealings with our own government health care programs (Medicare/Medicaid, VA, Tri-Care, etc). The horror stories are boundless. I'm sure the blog can be filled with anecdotal examples to back up the generally poor review these "free" systems get from their captive "customers."

And finally, Paul, if the stats you've presented convince you that the U.K., Canada, and New Zealand, are superior I would hope you are already living there.

If you don't want "lies," Paul, please don't present them in return.
-- Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia

---

AND SO IT BEGINS

Bob Tyrrell has long been a favorite of mine, and he hasn't been afraid to incur fire from the left. But I don't understand why neither he nor anyone at The American Spectator has been willing to take on the case for impeaching and removing Obama. The case is there to be made; it is begging to be made. It's about fraud in an election campaign. Sure, the left will bust several gaskets at the mere mention of the word "impeachment." So be it. The shoe fits.

We would hear screams of fear for the country if the beloved first black president were even to be the subject of an impeachment discussion. And many if not, most conservative pundits would run for the exits. But what we're ignoring are the screams of fear for the country that are growing every day if this radical agenda is not stopped, cold. And they are angry screams, for the simple reason that Americans know they have been defrauded. Nobody voted for this agenda; nobody knew it was coming. Contrived Pravda popularity polls cannot be allowed to obscure this fact.

The case for impeachment is right in front of all of us. Let Pravda go hysterical; let them trot out another 'blame Bush' thesis; let them do anything they want. We elected Bernie Madoff, and now we need to unelect him.
-- Paul Gable