The American Spectator

Jeremiah| 1.25.09 @ 6:03PM

The most tired and hackneyed response to every proposal that we mend our healthcare system involves reporting some anecdote from Great Britain, about a sick person who was not made well.

Look, folks. No one is saying we adopt Britain's, or Canada's, or France's system of healthcare delivery. What some say is we should continue to study their systems to find ideas that might work for us.

Democrats largely do NOT favor a single payer system of nationalized healthcare: Obama certainly does not.

But if you think there's a purely freemarket solution to this problem, with its unique relationship to technological innovation, then you're dreaming.

A consumerist model of exchange, predicated upon concepts of free choice and rational acting, is not entirely useless when analyzing the relationship between patient and doctor, but it does not provide absolute guidance either.

danny| 1.25.09 @ 6:05PM

fat chance that'll happen.

Stan Redmond| 1.25.09 @ 6:42PM

Hey Jeremiah,

Sorry to rain on your Obama fire...

"Barack Obama said he would consider embracing a single-payer health-care system, beloved by liberals, as his plan for broader coverage evolves over time. "

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/19/obama-touts-single-payer-system/

How is embracing socialized single payer healthcare NOT the same as favoring? And to answer your question about why we bash European and Canadian single payer socialized healthcare is because it's a FAILURE. Where are we suppose to look? Especially now we've seen the contempt Obama and his chosen cabinet members have for flyover country we sure as hell don't want Obama deciding who gets what when it comes to our care.

Frank| 1.25.09 @ 7:06PM

Hey Jeremiah,

The most tired and hackneyed democrat response to every proposal that we mend our healthcare system involves conspicuous silence regarding trial lawyers, and a slip-and-fall all over themselves effort to be donation recipients of the John Edwards strain of political contributors. What a crock. Just keep talking about efficiency in health care and say it's not about denial of care and euthanasia.

Jeremiah| 1.25.09 @ 7:46PM

Frank --

The notion that 45 million people do not have health insurance because of "trial lawyers" is ludicrous.

Stan --

To my knowledge, Obama's proposals for health care reform involve a variety of localized plans to insure people through employment or through the states.

And just so you know:

People in Canada, Great Britain, and France enjoy better health care than we do. It may be a failure, but compared to what?

God forbid you should find out what it's like to be seriously ill in this country, when your HMO dumps you or sues you, and you find that the symptoms of disease are absolutely the least of your worries.

Jeremiah| 1.25.09 @ 7:49PM

Stan -- one last thing.

Have you ever been to France? Or, do you get everything you know about their health care system from Sean Hannity?

You should try visiting these places and asking around. I think you'll find there's a lot more satisfaction with health care in these countries than there is here.

Matt| 1.25.09 @ 7:56PM

"People in Canada, Great Britain, and France enjoy better health care than we do. It may be a failure, but compared to what?"

Please clarify. Do you mean better because more people are covered, or the quality of care is better?

Here is something you seem to fail to understand. Just because you are not insured does not mean you do not get care. It is illegal for a hospital to turn you away here in the U.S. of A.

Pkane| 1.25.09 @ 8:04PM

Um, doesn't every argument for universal healthcare begin with "some anecdote ... about a sick person who was not made well" because of greedy capitalist doctors/HMOs, etc. in the US? An old lady picking up cans on the highway, taking her baby to the pawnshop, share heartworm pills with her dog, etc, etc.?

In fact, I could easily see a similar story to the one in Britain being told over here about someone having to raise money from friend, family, etc, because their HMO didn't cover her treatment.

The difference is that here, despite a lousy HMO, she would have at least had options aside from having to travel to another continent to get treatment. Isn't socialized medicine supposed to prevent such hardships? Also, "Proton treatment is not available in the UK because of the expense."

If the United State were to join the socialized medicine club, would these expensive treatments even be developed? Sadly, once we cross that line we'll have no idea what life saving technologies may have been.

Alas, it doesn't matter how many real life examples exist to demonstrate the limitations of bloated government solutions - the leftist will always believe "Oh, but WE'RE smarter than they were! WE can defy laws of human nature. WE can defy reality. Yes. WE. CAN!"

How difficult is this to understand? If you give something away for free, especially something people deem a necessity, they will want more of it - lots more! In addition, "Health Care" is not some stationary object you can just toss to the crowd like a loaf of bread - it's a dynamic market of cost intensive products and services.

How does one even begin to think that we can just set up government agencies to manipulate all of the complex market factors involved here?

Frank| 1.25.09 @ 8:47PM

Jeremiah,

The 45 million is an old saw. A boogeyman that is supposed to end discussion.

Have you ever spent time at a hospital? Have you worked there? Do you know how many people qualify for medicaid? You cannot quote 45 million without knowing that you are including many of these at least.

You do understand that people who come to the ER are always treated, and for the ones who are not indigent, payment is negotiated? The indigent? Guess who already pays for that.

You know the 45 million includes the temporary between jobs who choose to skip COBRA or private insurance. It also includes kids who don't want to pay the $120 per month before they are employed or qualify - tell me that Obamacare will be cheaper than that. For families over Medicaid eligibility, well there's schip! Man, it's tough here in the America, that "downright mean country."

You don't think trial lawyers are the major issue? Ask a doctor how much their insurance is, and what they need to do to keep it, and how easy it is for them to lose it. Obama says our health care is too expensive. You don't think trial lawyers and the damage they do are worth 30%? I'll take the over any day.

Sure there are other issues than trial lawyers. I never thought first dollar employer health care was a good idea, but now they don't either, except those who are hamstrung by the unions. And guess who the unions vote for??? funny, isn't it.

Oh, and by the way, you do know that a major portion of the 45 million are, of course, not citizens? don't believe me? spend a few minutes in the ER - and if you are more bi-lingual than "merci beaucoup" you might get an idea.

Spare me.

Jeremiah| 1.25.09 @ 8:55PM

You people are making my case for me.

Yes, you're right. Many of the un-insured end up being treated for "free" in our nation's hospitals -- especially in emergency rooms.

This form of socialized health care (that's essentially what it is) is remarkable for it's utter stupidity.

It is far more expensive to hope the majority are covered through employment and then pass laws forcing providers to treat the sick who have no coverage for free.

There are two alternatives to this bizarre, fruitless, and completely insane arrangement:

1. We can become even more like Brazil, Mexico, or Argentina than we already have in the past 8 years and simply not treat the poor. We can let them die on the sidewalks outside of hospitals, rather than pay for their audacious choice to become ill.

or

2. We can insure all of our citizens. Those citizens happy with their present care, should keep it. Those without insurance should be given it through the states. (Pretty much what Obama is proposing.)

I understand that a successful health care reform terrifies the Republicans, since it could be a vote-getter for Democrats for the next century, as Social Security was in the 20th century.

That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

Jeremiah| 1.25.09 @ 8:58PM

error: "it's utter stupidity" should be "its utter stupidity"

so I'm stupid too, sometimes

rut| 1.25.09 @ 9:05PM

Liberals know that nationalized health care is a nightmare. They don't care because it's all about power, and they always want more. Besides, government employees won't have to put up with poor medical care and interminable lines, they'll make sure that they and their families get the best treatment available. The sheeple will get the leftovers.

ruth| 1.25.09 @ 9:06PM

Jeremiah, you're not stupid, but your liberal belief system is.

Matt| 1.25.09 @ 9:17PM

Jeremiah. You failed to answer my question.

Frank| 1.25.09 @ 9:19PM

OK this is it for me. Jeremiah, the problem with your case is what I said initially - the dictator of costs will be denial of care and euthanasia.

The free market around health care has been remarkable in its developments, fueled by people's willingness to pay while disciplined by employers' efforts at reducing costs and requiring demonstrated efficacy. The government programs, that surround the free market, benefit from what happens within, and extract revenue through mandated prices.

Handing things over to the single government payor will just begin the stifling of any benefits of innovation, except for the politically connected, which is what was mentioned in the riginal blog entry.

The worst thing about all of this is, if government had any ability to limit its intrusion into private markets, the current system could be rationalized, scaled back and made workable. C'est la vie. Oh yeah, and merci beaucoup.

ruth| 1.25.09 @ 10:26PM

Oh, don't forget, Frank, abortion, lots and lots of abortions. Fewer sheeple, you know.

An American in Canada| 1.25.09 @ 11:32PM

Check out "Mythbusting Canadian Health Care" parts 1 and 2 at ourfuture.org. They are written by another American (a futurist) living in Vancouver, BC. She eloquently points out the fundamental ideas that Americans believe about Canadian health care and provides information about their truth or falsity.

Not surprisingly, most of the myths are false. As for me, I live in Canada, I get good health care. I don't have to wait as long to see my GP as I did in California, and waits to see specialists are maybe the same as they were in California. A visit to the ER is about the same as in the US, but there's no multi-thousand dollar bill at the end of it.

Osamas Pajamas| 1.26.09 @ 12:50AM

I have to laugh when I hear some schmoo claim that there is no free-market solution to medical care ---- or that it has been tried and failed. That's like saying that free-market farming has failed because some people can't afford food ---- or can't afford as much of it as wealthier people can. The fault lies in the buyer, not in the seller. The Demos propose to remedy the "shortage" of medical care by hijacking it from those who have it and awarding it to those who don't --- otherwise, what is the point of aiming real, loaded guns at people and telling what they can and can't do? OhBummer and his gang have been blowing smoke up our butts for decades, and pushing socialized medicine as "single-payer" and "universal" and other code words. One thing's for sure ---- if OhBummer and his partners-in-crime were hijacking less of my property in the form of taxes, I would have more money to spend on my healthcare. These creepy predatory humanitarians should just go live in socialist countries. Oh, and SHUT UP.

Amelia| 1.26.09 @ 2:01AM

I have to laugh about people who are jealous of the national health care system in England. I lived there for 8 years and it was a total joke! Everyone laughs about it there because there are so many horror stories. But the jokes are sad...especially in the recent case of my friend's father, who was suspected to have had a few small strokes but nothing was done about it - according to the doctor, "it couldn't be that." Result? Her father had a major stroke and died 4 days later last December. Americans, the joke will be on you if you vote for national health care and it will be just as sad.

ruth| 1.26.09 @ 2:59AM

Obomber is a joke. I keep hoping that the 2008 election outcome is just a nightmare and I'll awaken soon.

ruth| 1.26.09 @ 3:02AM

American in Canada, if I go to the ER my insurance company picks up most of the bill. Who pays yours, or do Canadian doctors and nurses work for free? Kind of like heaven, right?

Ed| 1.26.09 @ 8:07AM

In response to the individual who said that you should go to these contries and if you do you will note that they are satisified with the system. Well, I am Canadian, have lived in Canada 50 years and the system is great...well, unless you really need it. My father waited 7 months for prostrate surgery...oh, and by the way, he was 87 at the time. My wife found a lump in a breast (turned out to be nothing), 3-4 months for a mamogram. We were lucky to find a GP but my father still has to go and wait at a clinic for anthing that bothers him. The joke here in Canada is that if the US goes single payer...where will all our politicians go for heath care since if they have anything serious they jump on a jet and go to the US.

Indiana Alex| 1.26.09 @ 9:28AM

The reason health care is so expensive now is because government spends over $.50 of every dollar.

If you think it's expensive now, wait until it's free.