In The Shadow of Socialized Medicine
Generally speaking, most liberals are for single payer health care or some other form of socialized medical care, and most conservatives are not. This is fairly easy to understand as the majority of liberals believe that health care is too important to be left to the money grubbing big pharma companies and the selfish, money-grubbing, power-hungry doctors who think they are demigods.
Conservatives of course are much more rational. We understand that the liberal mindset cannot grasp the logical extension of their thinking. For example, If it is good social policy that the so called rich pay more than they should, repeat should be more than magnanimous and pay everything they make; you know the simplified IRS Form 1040:
Line 1 How much did you make……………………$_________
Line 1a Send it in!………………………………………..$_________
And of course the rest of us merely get a check based on our “fair share” of the pie.
Obama has already set that up in his “95% of you will get a tax cut” which leaves out the simple fact that 40% of us don’t pay taxes anyway and if Obama really does get his way, that means that those in that category will get a larger check from Uncle Sugar as Uncle Sam is known in some corners.
But I digress, this story is about medicine and not tax dollars (though by the end of this diatribe you will understand the connection between the two.)
I recently read via Glenn Reynolds that there is the possibility of rationing of health care – oh, excuse me, that is a buzz word hated by those who support single-payer health care (socialized medicine by another name) – I mean rationing Tamiflu and Relenza because the WHO (World Health Organization) says that if we aren’t careful about who gets it, we may well run out of if.
For the moment, let’s forget the running out of it part and concentrate on the lets decide who is gonna get it and when that happens, health care is being de facto rationed. And rationed care is not one bit better than what we currently have, except for who gets to decide who gets it. Lets be honest, there is not enough quality health care to go around in this world. Like it or not, that is a simple fact that even the most obtuse ought to be able to get their minds around.
Currently, the best health care is fettered by ability to pay or possession of some form of health “insurance” or by the charitable giving of time and resources by those that have the time and resources to give. That is one of the reasons that rationed care in say our neighbor to the north, Canada, has so many of it’s citizens coming to the United States for say MRIs or hip and knee replacements – care that we routinely accept as, well, routine. Of course, knee replacement costs money, but it is available to those on Medicare, Medicaid, or those with health insurance. And that of course means that it is rationed to those that can afford it – those without health insurance of some kind can either go without or pay for it out of pocket, and make no mistake, it ain’t cheap. In Canada, the wait for a “simple” knee replacement is perhaps greater than a 6 month period with poorer outcomes for those that waited longer where as in the United states, the wait time is 3 to 6 weeks and of course better outcomes.
Other medically necessary proceedures take longer in Canada than they do in the US, that is simple fact and the reason is simple, when the supply of dollars is limited, care must be rationed. Medicare for example is rapidly running out of dollars. According to the Obama administration, Medicare will run out of funds sooner than expected, as will Social Security:
In announcing the results of the trustees’ annual forecast with other Cabinet members, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said, “The president explicitly rejects the notion that Social Security is untouchable politically.” Still, he reiterated that the administration intends to “work to build a bipartisan consensus to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security” only after it collaborates with Congress to slow health-care spending and enable more Americans to obtain medical insurance.
You know, that’s pretty funny because conservatives have stated all along that Social Security and Medicare were going to be a massive drain and would be “in trouble” long before the Democrats decided that it was not an “untouchable” political third rail:
Congressional Republicans and some Democrats seized upon the findings to argue that the administration should work rapidly to ward off the looming insolvency of Social Security and Medicare. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who withdrew from nomination as Obama’s commerce secretary, said yesterday’s report shows that the recession is “accelerating the arrival of a massive, trillion-dollar entitlement crisis on our doorstep.” He added: “Trying to kick the can down the road will not make it go away. We need to take meaningful action now.” [emphasis added]
I distinctly remember the debate over the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1964 and 1965 and the cost was “guaranteed” by Vice President Humphrey to stay “low.” Unfortunately for America, that cost was only a drop in the flood that these two entitlement programs would balloon to. Outlays for Medicare and Medicaid program are currently running to over $500,000.00 per household and the simple reason is that these programs have grown and grown and grown as “benefits” by a congress that wants to stay in power and it knowingly does so by handing out goodies gratis to the recipient but paid for by the American Taxpayer:
Taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion in federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security and other government programs, a USA TODAY analysis found. That’s nearly $500,000 per household.
Those goodies will eventually result in significant rationing by a faceless bureaucracy. Will you get that new cancer treatment – no, not if you aren’t a special class. Will you get Tamiflu, again, no because that is suggested that it be rationed by WHO, and if you are a healthy productive member of society, don’t count on it because those of us that are at “higher risk” are likely to use up the supply if e.v.e.r.y.b.o.d.y. who wants it gets it.
I work hard for my living, and I have a great health insurance policy. I recently had an antibiotic prescribed that has a retail cost of $288.99 but I only paid $25.00. I’m also a cancer survivor, lung cancer in fact and I was an idiot smoker. What would have happened in the health nazi’s had said “Hey wait, we don’t give out anti-cancer drugs to those who smoked themselves into cancer.” Or maybe just denied because my best years are behind me? My beloved uncle recently had heart surgery paid for primarily by Medicare. He is in his (oh so very young) 80′s. Would he have been denied the surgery because he is “too old?”
But wait will say some, American Health Care isn’t so hot, in fact, the WHO rates US healthcare as 37th; below Costa Rica and Morroco. Morroco? Yeah, Morroco. Oh well, at least we beat Chad and Nigeria let alone Russia.
But there are significant problems with that ranking (last done 9 years ago because of the “complexity” of the problem.) Complexity? Heh, as Glenn Reynolds might say! One of the problems is of course, their methodology about which Dr. Chris Rangel note:
In the mockumentary ‘Sicko’, Michael Moore points out that despite spending the most on health care of any nation ($7,400 per capita), the US ranks near the bottom among industrialized countries and only two spots above Cuba (that spends $251 per capita). What rankings? In 2000 the World Health Organization came up with rankings for the health care systems of 190 countries.
The problem is that the WHO ranking has very little to do with the quality of health care as implied by ‘Sicko’ and by many liberals. Of several variables, only life expectancy is used as a measure of health care quality. But this is a bad measure of overall health care quality and does not correlate exactly with health care spending. This is due to the fact that there are multiple other variables other than health care that directly impact life expectancy.
Of course, we could offer health care like Cuba’s which Michael Moore extolled and which the WHO ranks 39th, only two lousy points below the US, but compare pictoral representations of the two:
Choose the hospital room on the left, or on the right. Your choice, choose carefully!
UPDATE: From Town Hall via Hot Air
H/T to Raven
UPDATE II: More great commentary by Karl at Patterico and by Ronald Bailey at Reasononline
You also might enjoy these posts (selected just for you by Conservative Elves):
- Veterans For The Constitution Take On A Troll Type Congresscritter.
- The BRILLIANT Chris Muir!
- Z Street sues IRS
Comments
Dar:
In 2002 the United States spent $5,267 per person on health care. Canada spent $2,931; Germany spent $2,817; Britain spent only $2,160. Yet the United States has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than any of these countries.
Kender: Might that be to the hordes of illegals who slink over the border to deliver us a brand spanking new citizen after spending almost 9 months pregnant without prenatal care? Just curious.
Darrell, Larry & Darrell, the way to fix healthcare is two fold and none of it involves government sponsored healthcare.
One; open the market to more competition. Right now it is limited by states boundries. Letting companies compete in larger areas would lower costs.
Two; tort reform. Malpractice insurance and a CYA attitude costs doctors a lot of money.
Failing that (as I know a common sense approach is a pipe dream) lets do this. Pass laws that state to get any luxury item (cell phone, cable etc.) one must show a current and valid healthcare card. They do it with car insurance. If you dont have insurance they pull your registration (at least here in CA) so lets get a healthcare license and make people license having a TV, car, cell phone and cable or satellite service.
The thinking here is many people who claim they cannot afford health insurance seem to still have all these other things they dont need, so if you are going to force a system on everyone why not go whole hog and force people to do the right thing?
They do it with car insurance, just expand it to health insurance. Come on…let’s just jump on the nanny state bandwagon…after all, you progressive pukes seem to think you knwo whats best for everyone, so lets just get it going full on.
DAR said:
In 2002 the United States spent $5,267 per person on health care… [snip] the United States has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than any of these countries.>>
KENDER: Might that be to the hordes of illegals who slink over the border…>>
DAR
No. Canada has a the highest immigration rate in the world. The US wastes $209 billion a year just on shuffling the paper for 1,500 insurance companies (Canada has one). Try again, and perhaps without appealing to your baseless xenophobic tenancies.
KINDER
One; open the market to more competition.>>
DAR
Republicans have been singing that same song for years, to no effect other than continuing to line the pockets of a trillion dollar industry. Time to take the greed and waste factor out of health care. We can’t afford it anymore.
KINDER: Two; tort reform. Malpractice insurance and a CYA attitude costs doctors a lot of money.>>
DAR
I completely, 100%, agree.
KINDER: …lets do this. Pass laws… one must show a current and valid healthcare card.>>
DAR
Nope, I’m not in favor of that. I don’t know any country requires this, so you are just being silly. I think Mass. is trying this, to ill effect. This just forces people to continue to feed the bloated greed based system. Money, and lots of it, down the hole.
KINDER: …after all, you progressive pukes seem to think you knwo whats best for everyone,…>>
DAR
Nice touch. And you were doing so well for a moment.
D.
————————
“I’m honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein.” —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004
I think Darrel is a young kid who has no wisdom in his limited world; I think he drinks more liberal Kool Aid than a drunk drinks beer; I think GM should close comments on this post as its apparent Darrel is refusing to even consider our “side”, our “concerns” on this issue.
He cites info from known liberal sites. He speaks the speak- talking points that have been ingrained in his head through a very biased education and perhaps upbringing. He has NO EMPATHY for those who have suffered/died needlessly due to government regulation of their health care. (Britain….) He cites bogus “facts” and actually he’s used very little sourcing.
RAVEN
I think Darrel is a young kid who has no wisdom in his limited world;>>
DAR
Two points.
1) I am 42 and have lived 21 years in Canada and 21 years in the US. Father is Canadian, mother is American.
2) I’m smarter than you.
RAVEN
I think he drinks more liberal Kool Aid than a drunk drinks beer;>>
DAR
Try rising above the urge to engage in baseless personal attacks. Not useful.
RAVEN
I think GM should close comments on this post as its apparent Darrel is refusing to even consider our “side”, our “concerns” on this issue.>>
DAR
I will consider your side and your concerns on any issue. And I will refute, substantively, them when they are wrong. I think you may be an intellectual coward who wants to censor me because you can’t respond to my arguments. I really dislike cowards.
RAV
He cites info from known liberal sites.>>
DAR
This is the genetic fallacy, please familiarize yourself with it. Truth is independent of it’s source. I cite a spectrum of sources and treat them all with considered skepticism. That you would even say what you do shows you have some kind of rightwing cult like mentality. You might want to broaden your horizons a little.
RAV
He has NO EMPATHY for those who have suffered/died needlessly due to government regulation of their health care.>>
DAR
Again, you don’t know what you are talking about. The truth is in the details. Thousands are killed in the US each year through medical mistakes and lack of access to care. The US has a great deal of needless suffering and death due to it’s healthcare debacle.
RAV: He cites bogus “facts” and actually he’s used very little sourcing.>>
DAR
a) Provide an example of a “bogus fact” I have cited.
b) I will source and back up any claim you ask me to. Please don’t hesitate to ask.
If you would like to discuss these issues like an adult, I will be pleased to show you how to begin. Or you can run away and try to hide behind censorship.
Darrel.
darrell you are a dumbass…
Dar:”No. Canada has a the highest immigration rate in the world. ”
canadas immigration numbers are along the lines of 240,000 to 265,000 new Permanent Residents.
Contrast that to the U.S which is running to 1.3 million (by the DHS numbers) so right there I have taken your lie and blown it out of the water.
So I think Raven is right. You are full of it. And yes republicans have been singing that song for years and nobody has listened have they?
Listen son, you are far outmatched. Surrender and crawl back to your lefty talking point unable to think tank.
KINDER: darrell you are a dumbass…>>
DAR
When you make such comments you are revealing quite a bit about yourself, and precisely nothing about me. Someday you may learn this. No one here thinks I am dumb.
***
Dar:”No. Canada has a the highest immigration rate in the world. ”
KINDER canadas immigration numbers are along the lines of 240,000 to 265,000 new Permanent Residents.>>
DAR
I am sorry you didn’t read my comment carefully. The word “rate” obviously refers to per capita. Note:
“According to Canada’s Immigration Program (October 2004) Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world”
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp190-e.htm
KINDER: so right there I have taken your lie and blown it out of the water.>>
DAR
No, you’ve just shown you don’t know what a “rate” is.
Try again.
KINDER: Listen son, you are far outmatched. Surrender and crawl back…>>
DAR
If I am “outmatched” why are you wanting this thread locked and me censored?
God I hate cowards.
Darrel.
“blockquote>No one here thinks I am dumb.
Now that is awfully presumptuous!
DAR
Yes it is presumptuous. But it’s true.
D.
I never said a thing about this thread being locked….I hope it stays open…you are far too easy a target.
Let’s discuss this “rate” comment. You said nothing about per capita. That is a straw man argument here. Lets talk raw numbers. Tell ya what, let’s even go back to the infant mortality rate you spoke of earlier.
I am gonna take 2004 as an example (because I am pressed for time and don’t want to dig deeper for more numbers) and compare canada and the U.S.
canada live birth in 2004; 337,072
U.S. live births in 2004; 4,112,052
That’s an increase of of over ten.
Now lets look at illegal immigration numbers:
A quick google search will show that canadas illegal immigration problem is much less sever than the U.S. (partly due to canadas very lax immigration laws-interesting because canada is the only country whose laws state if your parents are not legal you are not either even if born there) and partly due to teh fact that canada spends a lot of time cold and snowy…
By contrast the U.S. has an illegal immigration problem that far outweighs canadas (even per capita) and while numbers of infant portality are not broken down by the legal status of the mother common sense dictates that the number must be higher in the undocumented community from lack of prenatal care for those hwo come here late in their pregnancy.
As for you being presumptuous regarding people here not considering you stupid let me assure you that is exactly what people here think of you, among other things.
You are a moron, darrelllarrydarrell and I stand by my comment that your comment on immigration was wrong. You said rate, implying sheer numbers, not per capita, and I am not going to let you back out and change what you meant now that you have been caught with your pants down.
DAR
Not bad, if you an elementary school student. Otherwise, on a scale from one to ten, zero.
Actually darrelllarrydarrell you don’t deserve more effort than that.
Wow kender, I’m new here and if you had anything of value to add I would miss it completely because of your petty, immature name calling attacks. What is the point of that? Are you just trying to show off to some immature 12 year old or something? Try a rational argument instead if you have one.
Raven, good Idea, comments are closed on this post!
KINDER quotes: “Canada has a the highest immigration rate in the world.” –Dar
There’s a good start…>>
DAR
Already rebutted. See above. Read for comprehension.
KINDER: “now lets talk about baseless personal attacks.>>
DAR
Actually, lets not. Best to try and avoid those.
KINDER: You are an idiot.>>
DAR
You are quickly making yourself irrelevant, and that’s unfortunate. Aim higher. You can do better than this (I hope).
KINDER: [childish insults snipped] How was that?
DAR
Not bad, if you an elementary school student. Otherwise, on a scale from one to ten, zero.
D.