And you can spin your “socialized medicine will result in worse healthcare” shtick all you want but the facts aren’t in your corner. It’s just more conservative fear mongering.

Left by Monty on August 9th, 2008 at 10:00 am

What facts would those be, Monty.
If we look at the UK and Canada, for instance, never mind Cuba’s horrid system, we will find a socialist system that only works if you are healthy, and don’t need care.
Here’s a brief report on Canada’s CommieCare.
If you think health care is expensive now, it would be unaffordable if it were free.

Left by No2Liberals on August 9th, 2008 at 10:39 am

And yet both the UK and Canadian systems end up producing comparable health outcomes at 1/2 or less the per capita spending of the US. The VA, the only truly “socialized medicine” in this country, produces far better outcomes than your beloved but inefficient and shortsighted private system. Don’t let any pesky facts get in the way of a nice political argument, though.

Especially not noticing that Canada and the UK are the exceptions among industrial democracies in maintaining an entirely state driven system. France, Germany and Japan’s systems utilizing competing private sect0r insurers operating within a uniform and closely regulated system that achieves universal coverage without any of the disadvantages of a state monopoly.

Nope, the only options are the glorious status quo or grandma dying while on a waiting list set up by mendacious liberals.

Left by Some Jerk on August 9th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

“Especially not noticing that Canada and the UK are the exceptions among industrial democracies in maintaining an entirely state driven system. France, Germany and Japan’s systems utilizing competing private sect0r insurers operating within a uniform and closely regulated system”
Left by Some Jerk on August 9th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Ahh, the French. There is something to aspire to be.

“operating within a uniform and closely regulated system”
Now we get to the meat of the argument. Let us regulate you, let us monitor you. In the name of socialism, er, I mean socialized medicine. Socialized medicine feels good, doesn’t it? Kinda like the whole stupid as shit global warming the sky is falling thing. Just a way to get us out of SUV’s out of the parks and into the inner city on a bus. I am a free Man. I pay for my own insurance. And I pay for a whole lot of freeloaders. I see no reason to pay more to encourage others to do less. Now get your shit on down to WalMart and protest something.

Left by chris on August 9th, 2008 at 8:53 pm

. Let us regulate you, let us monitor you. In the name of socialism, er, I mean socialized medicine.

As if your HMO isn’t setting rules for you, free man.

SJ- don’t bother- the word France elicits Beavis-like chortles regardless of the quality of their healthcare. It doesn’t matter what facts you present there is some catchphrase that Rush has drilled into their heads as a response: MARXIST, BEDWETTER, RED DIAPER… Anything to avoid the conversation that they have no solutions to the problems of Americans.

Left by Preston on August 9th, 2008 at 10:58 pm

Here’s where I agree with the Dems, but with caution. I, too, do not want a system like Canada or the UK. But, the system in Germany is very good. It’s not free. In fact, it’s based on your income and high wage earners pay a lot for it, but they can go to any hospital or doctor they want. Most of here in the US can’t do that now with our insurance … we’re restricted to in network or pay a huge bill if we go out of network. And, let’s not forget our insurance is not free either. Many of us pay hefty premiums already for private insurance.

We need to do something in this country. In thousands, if not millions of cases, people can’t even get insurance because of pre-existing conditions and that is simply not even moral. And, I think most will agree the increasing costs of our current insurance premiums are simply not sustainable.

Left by dianne on August 10th, 2008 at 10:33 am

Dianne, everyone recognizes that access needs to be improved, but why go down the road of single-payer universal health care, when there are so many examples of what an abyssmal failure it is. Not to mention putting one-seventh of our economy in the incapable hands of government to manage?
A gentleman I know wrote this piece in the WSJ last week concerning McCain’s health care proposal, but I still prefer this approach. It needs to remain free market based, as CommieCare creates huge tax increases, waste, and shortages of care.
Like in the UK’s NHS.

Left by No2Liberals on August 10th, 2008 at 11:30 am

Thanks, No2. I read both the references. This will take some study and comparisons. But, I’m not going to vote for Obama no matter his health care plan so I hope if McCain gets in, that both sides will agree on a good plan. However, I have to give the Dems credit for pushing the issue. The Repubs should have stepped up to the plate long ago.

Left by dianne on August 10th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

I’m not sure I would give the donks that much credit, as it is one of their largest special interest groups, and second largest donors to their party, the trial lawyers, that have helped create the huge price increases in health care. The only pushing I see the donks doing is pushing up the price, and pushing a socialist approach, a major power grab that began as soon as Hillary got an office in ‘93. Her secret meetings on HillaryCare evoked protests, and her attempt to spread her message across our country were greeted with national disapproval, and some believe it was the HillaryCare power grab that ushered in the first GOP controlled Senate in almost fifty years.
Every GOP attempt to meet the challenges we face on health care, social security reform, and medicare/medicaid, have been opposed by the donks, and the only ideas the donks have come up with is to put or keep them under government control.
When it comes to health care, if there isn’t a free market approach, and there isn’t any competition(as their wouldn’t be in CommieCare), it’s not going to fly in this country. (click on the “more info” link on the right)

Left by No2Liberals on August 10th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Just because you rant doesn’t make it so, N2L - we don’t have a free market approach to health care in the US. Not nearly. Almost all the power in the market is in the hands of insurance companies.

Most people in this country obtain insurance through an employer provided plan. It’s a ridiculous system. The typical American is not even considered a customer of “their” insurance company. The employer is the customer. As a result an insurer has little or no accountability to the average Joe.

Finally, N2L - listen…you’re nothing more than a repugnant moron.

Left by Randall on August 11th, 2008 at 12:31 am

The irony here is that you can’t see how a “socialized” system actually can be more competitive than the existing “free market” system. The employer-provided system is obsolete, as noted above. It discourages entrepreneurship and flexibility by holding people back from starting a business or changing jobs.

The existing market for insurance is fragmented. Insurance regulation has always been a state matter, so there are 50 different regulatory regimes. The insurer’s profit motive is aligned with paying as few claims as possible, and screening out any sick people from membership.

There is no standardized billing interface, so every medical practice has to have employees constantly processing paperwork from 50+ different insurers, trying to make sure they get paid.

Compare that with a system like Germany. The doctors and hospitals are a mix of private and public, just like the good old USA. There are a range of “sickness funds” competing with each other, but all offer a broad standard benefit including prescriptions. Your employer pays half the premium, you pay half. They aren’t allowed to charge different rates or refuse customers for health reasons. They use a standardized billing interface, cutting doctor’s overhead immensely compared with the US.

You can see a similar pattern with the Federal Employee Health Benefit plan, one of the most successful insurance schemes in the US. Putting the competition at the level of the health plans competing with each other on service and price, and enrolling a very large pool of people to spread the risk around gives it tremendous economies of scale. Similarly, since it can ignore state insurance regulations as a federal program, it gets economies of scale from less red tape.

In short, there is no competition in the current marketplace. Either your employer selects a plan for you, or you buy in a dysfunctional private market. Simply unifying the balkanized private insurance market, setting a standard minimum benefit package and requiring all insurers to use a common billing interface, would cut overhead to the point we can talk about insuring everyone and cutting overall spending. Germany is the third most expensive in the world, $2800 per capita, but we are at $5200! Needless to say, they get better results.

And talk about freeloading: what do you think is more expensive, providing preventative care to everyone, or simply spreading the cost of ER treatment for the poor to everyone through rising medical costs?

Left by Some Jerk on August 11th, 2008 at 1:48 am

Randall, I am underwhelmed by your pejorative.
You really love me, admit it, you know you do.

Left by No2Liberals on August 11th, 2008 at 3:07 am

So you guys know that many of the big insurance companies are pushing to socialize medicine, right? The government is going to give these mega-corporations contracts. The end result of this will essentially be a legal monopoly. It’s a great way to get around that law…

So, if you’re for socialized medicine, then you’re for gigantic, unstoppable corporations that have tremendous lobbying power and financial influence.

Left by Guillermo on August 11th, 2008 at 11:14 am

So, if you’re for socialized medicine, then you’re for gigantic, unstoppable corporations that have tremendous lobbying power and financial influence.

Funny, Guillermo, you must’ve missed the last 20 years. Right now our healthcare system is run by gigantic, unstoppable corporations that have exactly what you say you’re afraid of.

Left by Randall on August 11th, 2008 at 2:39 pm

SJ, essentially everything you addressed, is offered by this plan, which the donks wouldn’t let come to a vote in committee.

Being self-employed, I have insurance companies hounding me almost everyday, trying to get me to change plans, the proverbial bigger, better deal. To me, that is competition, a free market in action.
And while the employer based insurance program is considered dysfunctional, they offer plans(usually) that address their employees health care needs, at the best price they can find. Sure they could provide the golden plan that would be the envy of every other employee around, but it would be unaffordable. Still, it is a free market plan, which someone in the companies management has to negotiate for with the various insurance companies, then the board of directors has to sign off on it. Companies don’t just magically produce a plan for their employees by a mysterious unnamed insurance company.
In the case of CommieCare, you have no choices in the system, of any kind.

BTW, Robbie’s employer offers a health savings account, another free market idea, y’all should ask him about it.

Left by No2Liberals on August 11th, 2008 at 5:35 pm