Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit"Dr. Sikora, do you feel there is a need to expand competition and choice for people in this country?" asks the interviewer. "Absolutely," says Dr. Karol Sikora, a senior British oncologist and former head of the World Health Organization's cancer program. "There's no incentive to offer people services in a state monopoly."
Dr. Sikora's interview is part of a TV ad campaign that's using the tragic stories of patients failed by Britain's National Health Service to block Obama's health care reforms. The ads are made by a group called Conservatives for Patients Rights, set up this year by the medical entrepreneur Richard Scott, who ran the $23 billion Columbia/HCA hospital chain until it was charged with massive Medicare fraud in 1997; the PR firm is CRC Public Relations, which masterminded the Swift boat attacks against John Kerry in 2004. Other segments feature a young woman whose cervical cancer went undiagnosed because NHS cervical screening starts at age 25 and who now may not make it, and another whose mother had to wait too long for kidney cancer surgery and subsequently died. This, they claim is the kind of thing that will happen to Americans if the medical business is made to contain its costs and open its doors to the poor.
While watching the ads on the web this morning I was also taking care of a piece of domestic business, trying to get through to our GP's office on the phone. Our ten-year-old son may need minor surgery; the appointment letter from the surgeon I chose with our doctor three or four weeks ago hasn't yet arrived. I had to call a couple of times before someone picked up, and I began to get irritated and read some of the endless news stories on the internet about the failings of the NHS. Then I spoke to the practice secretary. Ten minutes later, I got a call from the surgeon's office, offering us an appointment for next week. Sorted.
Like most British people, I have a love-hate relationship with the NHS, which definitely has its problems. There can be long waiting times for diagnosis and surgery; there is the so-called "post-code lottery," which means that treatment (especially cancer treatment) varies a lot depending on where you live. The bureaucracy's complexity is legendary. Expensive and potentially life saving or life extending drugs are not available to everyone who needs them. Hospitals are understaffed; MRSA infections are an ongoing issue.
But in the 14 years we've lived in London, members of my family have had, without a single bill: two hospital births, one attended by midwives in a birthing pool, the other requiring weekly scans by a top fetal medicine specialist; child development checks and vaccinations; lithotripsy for kidney stones; a tonsillectomy; physiotherapy for a broken arm; annual consultations for a chronic chest condition; and countless GP appointments for minor ailments in and out of hours, as well as free medicines and eye exams for the children. The practitioners and staff we have dealt with have been, almost without exception, professional, dedicated, overworked, and very kind. (I'll never forget the vigilant theatre nurse who watched our daughter wake up from a general anaesthetic.) The doctors we see often roll their eyes at the frustrations of the system, but they also know how to get the best from it for their patients. I have never once felt that cost was a factor in the treatments we were offered--though I know this might be different in some cases. Given the choice between an NHS teaching hospital and one that's run for profit, I know which I'd choose every time.
British politicians and commentators endlessly debate the future of the health service, which celebrated its 60th birthday last year: how to finance and manage it, how to make it more responsive to patients, how to pay for new generation medicines and techniques and meet the needs of an aging population. But even the Tory leader (and probable next prime minister) David Cameron has pledged to keep it free at the point of use. (His severely disabled son, who died earlier this year, was cared for by the service.) The right to healthcare is as fundamental as the right to education; the question is not whether but how that right is respected. When I talk to American friends about what we have here--especially those who live without decent insurance--they stare in disbelief. Don't be put off by the horror stories. Yes, the NHS sometimes fails people. It needs reform, and money. But most of the time it does a fantastic job--and it does it for everyone.
Correction: An earlier version of this post said that Richard Scott "founded and ran the $23 billion Columbia/HCA hospital chain." In fact he founded Columbia Healthcare, which merged with the Hospital Corporation of America to form Columbia/HCA.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"set up this year by the medical entrepreneur Richard Scott, who founded and ran the $23 billion Columbia/HCA hospital chain until it was charged with massive Medicare fraud in 1997"
Ya gotta love a guy who hates "government-run health care"....
but used it to enrich himself via fraud!
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 09:20am
"set up this year by the medical entrepreneur Richard Scott, who founded and ran the $23 billion Columbia/HCA hospital chain until it was charged with massive Medicare fraud in 1997"
Ya gotta love a guy who hates "government-run health care"....
but used it to enrich himself via fraud!
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 09:20am
Ya gotta love how Mask loves to lie about people.
1.Richard Scott was never accused of any wrong-doing in the HCA fraud.
2. Most, if not all of the fraud was found to have occurred prior to Scott and Columbia purchasing HCA.
<The HCA investigation grew out of lawsuits filed by former employees, starting in 1993, and focused on whether the company improperly billed Medicare for hundreds of millions of dollars.>
Scott and Columbia purchased HCA in 1994, which was after the investigations and lawsuits had been initiated.
but the facts don't seem to deter the left (as evidenced by Mask's post) from slurring Scott with this kind of falsehood.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 10:43am
MARIA: Given the choice between an NHS teaching hospital and one that's run for profit, I know which I'd choose every time.
So long as "It will never happen to me" medical horror stories like those used in the CPR ads, stay true in Maria's households, why shouldn't she prefer NHS where after 60 years, it still has so many "frustrations of the system"?
Just as in our current for-profit system, it works fine for most people most of the time and of course, it has "frustrations of the system"....but you can get much quicker care if you ever suspect that, hey, it could happen to me and I want second, third and fourth opinions....or just do the procedure sooner rather than wait some 197 days!
Posted by Happy at 05/14/2009 @ 10:56am
"Scott and Columbia purchased HCA in 1994, which was after the investigations and lawsuits had been initiated."---Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 10:43am
Okay, Larry....he bought a company under investigation and linked to fraud. He's innocent....just incredibly stupid.
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 11:15am
My wife and I lived in Scotland for seven years. Both our daughters were born on the NHS, and all our experiences with it were positive (no bills or that special mark of American healthcare efficiencey, the "This is not a bill"s). We did not experience any life-threatening illnesses, and we had friends who had to wait much longer than Americans - with good insurance - would have had to for non-emergency surgery (e.g., knee replacements), but even so they had no animus for the NHS.
What I was most struck by throughout my time in the UK was that anytime anyone bellyached about the NHS, the natural rejoinder was, "Well, you don't want to be like the Americans, do you?"
Posted by iamcfar at 05/14/2009 @ 11:56am
Maria Margaronis says above:
".....Like most British people, I have a love-hate relationship with the NHS, which definitely has its problems. There can be long waiting times for diagnosis and surgery; there is the so-called "post-code lottery," which means that treatment (especially cancer treatment) varies a lot depending on where you live. The bureaucracy's complexity is legendary. Expensive and potentially life saving or life extending drugs are not available to everyone who needs them. Hospitals are understaffed; MRSA infections are an ongoing issue. ......"
Really brilliant! We are supposed to have that here in the U.S., also?
The basic problem here in the U.S. is that not everybody can afford health insurance.
But instead of solving that problem in unique American ways, Libs want to install lousy healthcare like in the UK here also.
Libs, I don't claim to have the answer about affordability. I do know that instead of trying to solve that problem the debate is consumed with trying to prevent Libs from putting in Government run or Government managed systems that provide mediocre care elsewhere.
I guess Libs think that if all can afford "it", then "it" is the way to go even though it provides lousy care for all.
And the Lib goal (winning at class warfare) is not achieved anyway, because the wealthy in Europe (the winners of life's European lottery or European business people that have gotten their wealth off of the backs of the workers) can pay to get private care in private clinics or hospitals.
And over here, the wealthy in Canada (winners of life's Canadian lottery or Canadian business owners who have hosed and oppressed their Canadian workers) can come over here to the States and pay for better healthcare anyway, eh?
Posted by sjchermak at 05/14/2009 @ 12:01pm
Sad thing is that all the money in this issue is with the status quo. Those funding the Conservatives for Patients rights and the CRC PR firm. Of course that is the insurance industry. Because given the time and money one could show the gigantic holes in our current system, the middle class families that are bankrupted, the denial of treatment by insurance companies, the bureacratic review of patient treatments by insurance company accountants. The hours spent on the phone trying to get a bill paid, much of that time on hold. And of course people dying because treatment is not covered under their policy and they don't want to bankrupt their family or because without a means to pay they just can't afford the life saving treatment.
Once again the right is running with what they know and what they do best, FEAR. Only a single payer system is woth the time and money to make a change. I understand needing insurance for my car or home, but really, I should not need it for my health.
There is no perfect solution.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/14/2009 @ 12:09pm
my son had leg pains.
we called.
appointment next day.
waited 20 minutes...
he's o.k.
thank you.
STOP EATING CORNFOOD, AMERICA!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 12:39pm
"The basic problem here in the U.S. is that not everybody can afford health insurance.
Libs, I don't claim to have the answer about affordability."---Posted by sjchermak at 05/14/2009 @ 12:01pm
So, you're great at complaints, bad at solutions. You've got a career in talk radio and don't even know it, SJ!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 12:47pm
Some of the debate is about philosophy - and some about delivery. If you look at philosophy, remember that the first universal health service was introduced in Germany under Bismark: the state needed healthy workers. I have emigrated twice during my professional life - once to the USA - and returned to the NHS: I found the attitude that a child bleeding after tonsillectomy wouldn't be treated until the distraught parents had produced evidence of insurance unacceptable - although commercially understandable.(yes, this is a medical emergency!). There *are* problems in the NHS - but not as great as those in the US medical system for those who are not insured - or become ill, loose their jobs and therefore lose all medical care... Obviously in any system there are financial problems: there are far more things that can be done now than could be done in 1948 - far more new therapies looking for markets - life expectancy is increasing. But in the NHS, the problem lies with allocating resources for care across the population served rather than limiting medical care to those who can afford insurance - and looking at evidence based care before buying the latest Pharma heavily promoted wonder drug! Changing any system, anywhere, will create losers, especially among the current suppliers of the USA market healthcare. It will also provide new opportunities for new suppliers - and who knows? - it might even provide better health care for the sizable group unable to afford healthcare in the USA at present!
Posted by UKGP at 05/14/2009 @ 1:17pm
Mask,
Don't forget - Libs do not have a solution either, their only solution is to dumb down our current medical capability to theoretically make things better for all.
And the solution will impose more government control over our lives.
So making things worse is not a solution.
By the way, who is complaining? Not me. Complaining would be if one is making negative comments about a current system.
But the Lib ideas are not the current system... not yet.... so I am speaking out about making health care and life worse for the people of this country... .that is hardly "complaining".
If there did not have to be a constant battle with Libs to turn every issue or problem over to government control, then people could work on productive solutions to things that are problems, using the things that got us to the highest standard of living and greatest economic power and freedom in human history to begin with - American incentive and ingenuity brought about by people trying to better themselves and become a part of the American dream.
I admit I don't have all the answers. Libs have the wrong answers, but keep trying to force them down our throats.
Seems like those on talk radio have a legitimate concern about this, eh?
HehHeh
Posted by sjchermak at 05/14/2009 @ 1:35pm
USPS, GM, Chrysler, Medicare, Medicad; anyone think of other government success stories?
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/14/2009 @ 1:46pm
anyone think of other government success stories?
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/14/2009 @ 1:46pm
Amtrak, Veterans Administration, AFDC
Posted by sntauri at 05/14/2009 @ 2:02pm
anyone think of other government success stories?
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/14/2009 @ 1:46pm
halliburton, bechtel, kbr, dyncorp........
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 2:29pm
anyone think of other government success stories?
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/14/2009 @ 1:46pm
saddam, noriega, reza pahlavi, obiang, somoza, pinochet, suharto, mubarak, house of saud.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 2:33pm
anyone think of other government success stories?
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/14/2009 @ 1:46pm Posted by sntauri at 05/14/2009 @ 2:02pm Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 2:29pm Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 2:33pm
Looks like a lot of gov't FAIL. So let's turn over health care to them...
Posted by sntauri at 05/14/2009 @ 2:51pm
This is what the left wants; more of the bankrupt Medicare system. They are running ads every day saying "Medicare for All Americans"
<Is America about to go broke?
Government obligations for Social Security and Medicare may soon exceed the combined net worth of every household and nonprofit organization in the country.
In the four years from January 2004 to January 2008, the Medicare trustees reported that the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare grew by a stunning $10.4 trillion. The average annual growth topped $2.5 trillion.
In the 2008 trustees' report, the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare -- promises of future retirement and health care benefits -- total $42.9 trillion. In a few days, we should be able to read the 2009 report. It's a good bet that the unfunded liabilities will show an increase in the new report.
Last year's Social Security trustee report estimates that OASDI (Social Security retirement and disability) and HI (hospital insurance), excluding book entry interest for the trust funds, will have more revenue than expenses until 2015. If higher cost assumptions prevail, however, the last year of positive flow will be 2010. There is another way to see how serious our situation is: Compare the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare with the net worth of every household in America.
According to the Federal Reserve flow-of-funds figures for year-end 2007, our collective net worth as consumers was $62.7 trillion. By the end of 2008, the same figure had fallen to $51.5 trillion. Another year of growth for Social Security and Medicare liabilities would bring total unfunded government promises to about $46 trillion. That's nearly 90% of our net worth.
http://tinyurl.com/qoyycx
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 3:01pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 12:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
goddam canuck commies!!!!
LOL
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 3:10pm
Posted by sjchermak at 05/14/2009 @ 1:35pm
Well, you're not going to find a supporter of Federalized health care in me, SJ....but of the two, the Left DOES offer an answer and in a vacuum of ideas, that usually wins.
The silliness spouted over "medical savings accounts" is a dead end. How does a kid fresh out of college with $1000 in the MSA pay for treatment if they get cancer?
The "market-based solution" possibility ended years ago because the Right was more interested in just saying no and screaming "socialism" than coming up with a plan....kinda like NOW!
Single-payer will happen...not for a decade maybe...but it's going to happen.
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:12pm
anyone think of other government success stories?----Posted by comancheamerican at 05/14/2009 @ 1:46pm
Apollo Moon Landing.
Interstate Highway System.
Social Security, which despite Larry's doom-saying, would be completely solvent for decades with a tick up in the cap (From 90K to 120K).
Atomic Bomb Program (regardless of your view of nukes...it succeeded in its goal.)
World War-II.
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:16pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/14/2009 @ 1:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
TVA, social security, US military, NASA...
but boy i tell ya! this private health care system is PERFECT!!!!
because as your satano-aynrando anarcho-libertarian ideological canon states (with talking points galore free from your favorite propaganda factory)...
gubbament ALWAYS bad, private ALWAYS BETTER!!!
ITS A SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT!!! ITS THE WORD OF GAWD!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 3:17pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 3:17pm
Interestingly, it was the SOVIETS not us who followed the "conservative" model on their space program.
While we had a single "centralized bureaucracy" with NASA....their program was the result of several COMPETING "bureaus" (Korolyov, Chelomei,etc.) all vying for resources and only winning Government approval if they produced the best product.
(This is a odd-man-out example of course, since "lowest bidder" is not usually how you want to run a space program!...though we do!)
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:39pm
(This is a odd-man-out example of course, since "lowest bidder" is not usually how you want to run a space program!...though we do!)
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
indeed - and ultimately there IS no such thing as a cheap condom either...
man...i just look at hired ceo's paying themselves sometimes up to 10, 15% of their companies' profits and wonder what freaking fantasy world these duckspeaking conservobots are looking at.
sure...gubbament ain't perfect...no shit sherlocks!!!!
nothing in this world is, with the exception of the brainwashing of certain ideologues.
but neither is business...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 3:54pm
I worked for 24 years in automotive repair. Some shops paid for insurance some did not. The worst place wanted $135/week to insure my son. Mine was paid for. This was for $500 deductible/person $1000 total. $20.00 copay for meds even generic. Plus half of office visits, labs and xrays. I had a physical my cost of that was $400.00 I am a single dad. I got paid on commission. My plan was if my son or I got sick I would have to get fired so we could go on medicaid. This is the world for a non union skilled tradesman. I remember the Harry and Luise commercials in the 90s. The point of those was having a government worker make medical decisions for you. My thought then is still true today. I would rather have a government worker who for the most part wants to be of service but has no personal state in the care I get making decisions than some insurance pencil pusher whose bonus and vacations depend on how many times they can deny me or my son the care we need.
Do we need to get to no money no insurance? Then Die. From the comments that troll on this sight and the conservatives in general that is exactly what they want. After all once you are no longer a fetus or brain dead and on life support we are not REAL people any way so we might as well die.
Posted by bascaville at 05/14/2009 @ 3:57pm
What's this? An entire article about the NHS and no mention of "stacking?"
Posted by plainbruce at 05/14/2009 @ 4:59pm
"But in the 14 years we've lived in London, members of my family have had, without a single bill..."
But, as is typical, she continues with the verbal sleight of hand, pushing the notion, with subtle nuance, that health care is "free."
Posted by plainbruce at 05/14/2009 @ 5:03pm
"The practitioners and staff we have dealt with have been, almost without exception, professional, dedicated, overworked, and very kind. (I'll never forget the vigilant theatre nurse who watched our daughter wake up from a general anaesthetic.)"
Apparently, the author thinks that American physicians are not just as professional, dedicated, etc. and would have let her daughter wake up alone in a cold, dark room?
Posted by plainbruce at 05/14/2009 @ 5:07pm
"Yes, the NHS sometimes fails people. It needs reform, and money. But most of the time it does a fantastic job--and it does it for everyone."
Can anyone spot the contradiction?
Posted by plainbruce at 05/14/2009 @ 5:08pm
Wow. It is really hard to read a post that basically informs people, in a typically conservative roundabout way, that "hey, you ain't got the dough, tough crap".
When will people start to realize government is people? Bad people have run the government, good people have run the government. Since we have the ease through tv, and computers to spread information regarding just about anything; lies, truth bending, flat out cover up of truths has become status quo, especially with people in charge of power and/or money.
What will it take for people to realize the establishment of government is for it's citizens? The services we rely on and really can't provide for ourselves, that is why we have a government. So why is our health a luxury? Except for the people in health insurance for their own business, WHY do we have to have a tenuous job or be very rich, in order to know we will be treated for health issues. My friends in U.K. are US citizens but married to UK citizens. 2 have had cancer. They feel they have had excellent care.
Why do federal senators, representatives, get a high platinum health plan and we have to struggle daily to obtain and pay for a prescription, or get a test. (I have had to wait 8 weeks for a brain CT with severe headaches, single pay countries are no worse)
Work needs to be done to put an affordable plan together. But no one should suffer without healthcare, have to get care in an ER (which raises all our costs), and be treated second class by hospitals because they are poor so they are kicked out sooner and receive inadequate care (no stats on that, just my own observation of friends and family with no insurance. I would bet there are studies out there on this.)
Instead of arguing this, let's agree we all need care and find a way.
Posted by solfish42 at 05/14/2009 @ 5:20pm
Let's Hear It for FREEDOM, Top 10 & Bottom 10 cut-n-pasted FYI:
=================================
Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom
Jason Sorens, William P. Ruger
February 26, 2009
Research Papers/Studies
Table V: Overall Freedom Ranking
State Overall Freedom
1. New Hampshire 0.432
2. Colorado 0.421
3. South Dakota 0.392
4. Idaho 0.356
5. Texas 0.346
6. Missouri 0.320
7. Tennessee 0.284
8. Arizona 0.279
9. Virginia 0.275
10. North Dakota 0.268
.....
41. Connecticut -0.225
42. Illinois -0.238
43. Massachusetts -0.242
44. Washington -0.275
45. Hawaii -0.304
46. Maryland -0.405
47. California -0.413
48. Rhode Island -0.430
49. New Jersey -0.457
50. New York -0.784
Posted by Happy at 05/14/2009 @ 5:20pm
"The right to healthcare is as fundamental as the right to education" M. Margonis ------------------------------------------
"Any right that infringes on the rights of others is not and cannot be a right."
Posted by plainbruce at 05/14/2009 @ 5:34pm
One night after getting home from work about 5 years ago, I collapsed on my couch for about an hour before finally deciding to go to bed. The instant I got up I fell back down on the couch, I had the most intense pain I had ever felt in my ankle. It took me about 5 minutes to hobble back to my room, about 25 feet away. The next day I hopped on my bike (for some reason biking didn't hurt my ankle, but walking did) and took the free city bus to the local private hospital. I waited about 45 minutes in the ER, then got taken to a room where it took about 2 and a half hours for a doctor to take a look at my ankle. Their solution was to wrap it up in gauze and send me home with crutches, which I couldn't take since I brought my bike with me. It eventually went away on its own a few days later, but I was hardly able to move during those few days. I was under my dad's insurance at the time, if I remember correctly, I just don't remember being billed.
2 years ago, away at a public state university, it happens again. I hobble over to the free student health center, saw a doctor past retirement age in about 10 minutes, who gave me an anti-inflammatory prescription. Those pills cleared it up overnight...and the doctor there diagnosed me with gout.
So, a state-of-the-art major for-profit hospital vs. a tiny free clinic at a public university. One would have cost me hundreds of bucks if I didn't have insurance (I currently don't) and helped not at all and couldn't even diagnose me, the other cost me $4 for a generic prescription, properly diagnosed me in about a minute and later confirmed with lab test (which I did have to pay for), and gave me what I needed to quickly recover, and enabled me to treat myself whenever I had a recurrence. Which do I prefer? Not for-profit!
Posted by zmann at 05/14/2009 @ 5:40pm
Posted by plainbruce at 05/14/2009 @ 5:34pm
So why is the right to profit protected more than the right to live? Many, many thousands of Americans die annually for the sake of profit, whether directly by an insurance company's refusal to provide life-saving care, or indirectly by companies deciding it is more profitable to release toxins, poisons, or other pollutants into the environment than to clean them or switch to a process that doesn't release them. And how does the right to healthcare interfere with someone else's rights?
Posted by zmann at 05/14/2009 @ 5:45pm
Maria Margaronis says above:
".....Like most British people, I have a love-hate relationship with the NHS, which definitely has its problems. There can be long waiting times for diagnosis and surgery; there is the so-called "post-code lottery," which means that treatment (especially cancer treatment) varies a lot depending on where you live. The bureaucracy's complexity is legendary. Expensive and potentially life saving or life extending drugs are not available to everyone who needs them. Hospitals are understaffed; MRSA infections are an ongoing issue. ......"
Really brilliant! We are supposed to have that here in the U.S., also?
The basic problem here in the U.S. is that not everybody can afford health insurance.
Posted by sjchermak at 05/14/2009 @ 1
Hey, guess what?
The same is true here, too.
We just spend a whole lot more for it.
Posted by skeletonman at 05/14/2009 @ 5:48pm
Posted by zmann at 05/14/2009 @ 5:45pm
And how does the right to healthcare interfere with someone else's rights?
Ok. You have a right to healthcare. The Government must provide you with some (gov't defined) level of care. The gov't gets its money from the people. Your right to healthcare then confers upon you an absolute claim to the earnings of some (gov't defined) set of people. Your right to healthcare implies some (gov't defined) number of healthcare delivery personnel. If there are insufficient personnel in the system, services must be rationed, or more personnel must be provided. if they do not volunteer, they must be conscripted. Your right to healthcare then confers upon you the absolute right to the labor of some (gov't defined) set of people. You are owed other people's money and other people's labor. Even if they object.
Posted by sntauri at 05/14/2009 @ 5:55pm
Posted by Happy at 05/14/2009 @ 5:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
lets hear it for stupidity!!!!
rank state avg IQ voted for
1 Connecticut 113 Kerry 2 Massachusetts 111 Kerry 3 New Jersey 111 Kerry 4 New York 109 Kerry 5 Rhode Island 107 Kerry 6 Hawaii 106 Kerry 7 Maryland 105 Kerry 8 New Hampshire 105 Kerry 9 Illinois 104 Kerry 10 Delaware 103 Kerry 11 Minnesota 102 Kerry 12 Vermont 102 Kerry 13 Washington 102 Kerry 14 California 101 Kerry 15 Pennsylvania 101 Kerry 16 Maine 100 Kerry 17 Virginia 100 Bush 18 Wisconsin 100 Kerry 19 Colorado 99 Bush 20 Iowa 99 Bush 21 Michigan 99 Kerry 22 Nevada 99 Bush 23 Ohio 99 Bush 24 Oregon 99 Kerry 25 Alaska 98 Bush 26 Florida 98 Bush 27 Missouri 98 Bush 28 Kansas 96 Bush 29 Nebraska 95 Bush 30 Arizona 94 Bush 31 Indiana 94 Bush 32 Tennessee 94 Bush 33 North Carolina 93 Bush 34 West Virginia 93 Bush 35 Arkansas 92 Bush 36 Georgia 92 Bush 37 Kentucky 92 Bush 38 New Mexico 92 Bush 39 North Dakota 92 Bush 40 Texas 92 Bush 41 Alabama 90 Bush 42 Louisiana 90 Bush 43 Montana 90 Bush 44 Oklahoma 90 Bush 45 South Dakota 90 Bush 46 South Carolina 89 Bush 47 Wyoming 89 Bush 48 Idaho 87 Bush 49 Utah 87 Bush 50 Mississippi 85 Bush
gotta luv these ratings things!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 6:09pm
Which do I prefer? Not for-profit!
Posted by zmann at 05/14/2009 @ 5:40pm
Of course you do because someone else is paying for it.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 6:47pm
This makes me so mad I can hardly see straight. I lived and worked for four year in Britain and had to use the NHS half a dozen times. I received either comparable or better care. (When I suddenly became violently ill one night, I even got an emergency house call.) On the other hand, my mother, who after eight weeks of waiting, is pulling her hair out trying to get doctors to return her calls to confirm whether she has bladder cancer. They lose the specimens, they close their offices early. They just don't seem to give a damn. I went to a multi-doctor facility over and over because I was getting shortness of breath. They dismissed it as anxiety. In the end, after getting no treatment, I made another appointment. Before that appointment, I ran up and down the stairs, bringing on an asthma attack. Then the doctor was able to diagnose me then. The Great American Medical System is bullshit.
Posted by kkuchenb at 05/14/2009 @ 7:50pm
Posted by Happy at 05/14/2009 @ 5:20pm
Hey, HAPP....why is it some of those "free states"....voted for Obama the "socialist"???
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 8:53pm
Posted by sntauri at 05/14/2009 @ 5:55pm
And does anything else in the world work this way? Or only in your fantasy argument against government-provided healthcare?
Posted by zmann at 05/14/2009 @ 9:28pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 6:47pm
Technically my student fees paid for it. But I also received much better quality service.
Posted by zmann at 05/14/2009 @ 9:29pm
Posted by Happy at 05/14/2009 @ 5:20pm
What a load of tripe Happy. Why don't you post some Ms. Cleo here too. How in the hell do you gauge freedom? Give me a break Happy. This BS is almost as ridiculous as Bush thinking he could beat a concept like terrorism.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/14/2009 @ 9:55pm
Posted by zmann at 05/14/2009 @ 9:28pm
You asked, I answered. Your question implied that your "right" to health care couldn't possibly infringe anybody's rights. Your question here also implies you realize that your other rights also infringe others. Why do you think healthcare would be any different, if the Constitution gave such a right, which it doesn't.
Posted by sntauri at 05/14/2009 @ 9:58pm
Posted by zmann at 05/14/2009 @ 5:40pm Posted by zmann at 05/14/2009 @ 9:29pm
You're also comparing a busy ER serving all-comers with a "clinic" that serves a population of mostly healthy, young adults. It's not exactly apples to apples.
Posted by plainbruce at 05/14/2009 @ 10:21pm
"So why is the right to profit protected more than the right to live?"
When and where did I say this?
"how does the right to healthcare interfere with someone else's rights?"
The phrase itself implies it. You do NOT have a right to health care. Health care is a service, one that is provided by others (doctors, dentists, nurses, etc.). You can't have a right to those services because they don't belong to you. They belong to the only people who have a right to use them: the health care professionals. Claiming a right to the services of others implies ownership of those services and is tantamount to slavery.
What people really mean when they say "right to health care" (IMO) is they believe in a right to FUNDING for health care. IOW, they believe that someone else should have to pay for their health care. That is a much tougher sell for the reasons that sntauri laid out.
Posted by plainbruce at 05/14/2009 @ 10:39pm
I have lived both in the US and the UK and experienced both of their health systems. A few years ago, while living in the states, I experienced sharp chest pains. I immediately went to the ER and was promptly seen by an ER physician. He did his exam and saw that I was having a heart attack. He called a cardiologist who, after a brief exam , determined that I needed a heart cath. Within a few hours the cath was done and I was completely pain-free and recovering in the cardiac unit. I was discharged the next day with some new meds to prevent future heart attacks and given a follow-up appointment a couple weeks later.
A couple years later, while in the UK, I again had chest pains. I went to the ER there and after an exam, the doctor, who was very professional, determined that it was my heart again. They gave me medicines to make the pain go away (which it did) and discharged me with more prescriptions and a promise to get me in for a heart cath within a week. After 17 days and still no appointment for a heart cath, I died from a massive heart attack. (G*****N if that didn't piss me off.)
Which do I prefer? The US system!
Posted by plainbruce at 05/14/2009 @ 10:59pm
The silliness spouted over "medical savings accounts" is a dead end. How does a kid fresh out of college with $1000 in the MSA pay for treatment if they get cancer?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:12pm
Well, it's a shame if it is at a dead end because if nutured properly, the idea had potential to blossom into something better. (And if that kid was smart and used some of that $1000 to pay for relatively cheap catastrophic insurance, he would be covered.)
(BTW, you goin' soft, Mask? You used to gripe about how single-payer would be a "dismal failure")
Posted by plainbruce at 05/14/2009 @ 11:11pm
Which do I prefer? The US system!
Posted by plainbruce at 05/14/2009 @ 10:59pm
yeah, because you can afford 4 bmws instead of just 2, doc.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2009 @ 01:10am
Posted by plainbruce at 05/14/2009 @ 10:39pm
So claiming the right to be helped by the fire department if my home is on fire is tantamount to slavery? The right to be helped by the police if I'm the victim of a crime is tantamount to slavery? The right to a state provided attorney if I am charged with a crime and cannot afford legal representation is tantamount to slavery? No, it is a public service provided to all who need it at no charge and funded by taxes. Exactly as healthcare should be. Pay or die? I''ll pass. (And I currently do pass, I work at an internship, and I barely make enough money for food after paying rent and mandatory bills, nevermind have the money to see a doctor.)
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 06:25am
USPS, GM, Chrysler, Medicare, Medicad; anyone think of other government success stories?
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/14/2009 @ 1:46pm
The DMV.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 06:28am
When will people start to realize government is people? Bad people have run the government, good people have run the government.
Posted by solfish42 at 05/14/2009 @ 5:20pm
You are dead wrong. Good people have run the Government and other Good people have run the government.
Sometimes the good people who run the government believe the way the government can best help is to provide necessities and comfort to the poor.
Sometimes the good people who run the government believe the best way to help is to promote higher economic growth so that the vast majority of the population experience incereased standards of living. This isn't necessarily higher incomes, it can be through technological advances that give better value for the same price.
Cons/Reps think Libs/Dems are misguided. Libs/Dems think Cons/Reps are evil (or "bad people").
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 06:39am
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 06:25am
Declaration of Independence: "certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Constitution:
Amendment I: Freedom of religion speech and assembly
Amendment II: Right to bear Arms.
Amendment IV: Right to be secure in there persons
Amendment XIV: Right to equal protection
Amendment Various: Voting rights for blacks, women, etc.
etc.
Healthcare isn't an inalienable right, and unless we change the constituon it is not a Constitutionally protected or guaranteed right.
Food, Shelter, not even education are US Constituional right, though, they may be rights under state Constitutions.
Fire, police, local food shelf, these are services not rights.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 06:52am
(And I currently do pass, I work at an internship, and I barely make enough money for food after paying rent and mandatory bills, nevermind have the money to see a doctor.)
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 06:25am
Hence, my point. You believe that you have a right for someone else to fund your health care.
Posted by plainbruce at 05/15/2009 @ 06:53am
So claiming the right to be helped by the fire department if my home is on fire is tantamount to slavery? The right to be helped by the police if I'm the victim of a crime is tantamount to slavery? The right to a state provided attorney if I am charged with a crime and cannot afford legal representation is tantamount to slavery?
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 06:25am
Doctors have a right to refuse you access to their services. If you claim a right to health care, you take away physicians' rights to practice how they choose. (The exception to this is emergency services, which have more to do with a physician's obligation to treat than a patient's "right" to those services--a very important distinction.)
Posted by plainbruce at 05/15/2009 @ 07:01am
The U.S. government is spending $2.6 million to make sure prostitutes in China consume less alcohol while working!
As part of the five-year study, bankrolled by the National Institutes of Health, researchers are visiting more than 100 houses of prostitution to monitor their employees, designated as FSWs, or female sex workers. Pimps and madams are referred to as "gatekeepers" in the study's abstract!
The project comes thanks to a grant from the NIH's National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, which is also funding a $400,000 study of bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk.
We sure can TRUST a new U.S.A. government health program to look out for the best intrest of the health of the rest of the world using OUR TAX DOLLARS!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/15/2009 @ 07:21am
Cons/Reps think Libs/Dems are misguided. Libs/Dems think Cons/Reps are evil (or "bad people").---Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 06:39am
Darin, do you read RIO/comanche's posts?
Does it sound like he's sayiing they're "misguided"?
(Naturally, I don't expect you to be non-partisan, despite your attempt to APPEAR that way.)
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 07:54am
Six U.S. insurers approved for billions in bailout funds San Francisco Business Times.
Someone please explain wtf we're giving bailout money to insurance companies? Good God the system is screwed up.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 08:35am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 06:52am
How can I have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness if an insurance company can deny me life-saving care to protect its profits?
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 08:48am
Posted by plainbruce at 05/15/2009 @ 07:01am
You're still not getting my point, I think. Try not to think of healthcare as a business, where people can profit from it, and 'reserve the right to refuse service'. Think of it as a public service, like police or fire departments. Can the police or fire departments refuse to help citizens in need? Not everything in this world should be subjected to the desire for profit. Forcing the less fortunate to not seek treatment for their illnesses is insanely immoral. And what kind of workforce and civil society will we have, when a huge portion of it is unable to get good medical care? Only those who can afford it should have a healthy life?
And this one:
Posted by plainbruce at 05/15/2009 @ 06:53am
No, I believe in everyone pitching in so everyone can enjoy the benefits of modern civilization. I pay Medicare and Social Security taxes on my meager $8.50 an hour pay, but I don't complain. Why should you?
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 08:58am
How can I have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness if an insurance company can deny me life-saving care to protect its profits?
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 08:48am
Are you insinuating that Insuracare doesn't really care about it's clients (policy holders, not the stock holders)?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 09:29am
How can I have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness if an insurance company can deny me life-saving care to protect its profits?
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 08:48am
Because you misconstrue the role of govt to your rights.
The Founders created a govt that would not hinder your fundamental right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happpiness. This was a direct contrast to their previous state where everyone was the property of the king.
What you and others are now trying to do is redefine this in terms of "QUALITY" of life. That the Founders said, was left to the people and the individual states to determine.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 09:54am
No, I believe in everyone pitching in so everyone can enjoy the benefits of modern civilization. I pay Medicare and Social Security taxes on my meager $8.50 an hour pay, but I don't complain. Why should you?
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 08:58am
Are you naive or being the typical progressive decepticon? You know very well when you start pulling up the "life, liberty, pursuit of whatever I want" and "promote the general wellfare" stuff, that the end result is "let's tax the top 1%", which gets implemented as tax everybody. Somewhere in your upbringing you got infected with a John Rawls style of social justice virus, and deep in your heart, what you support is radical egalitarianism. Health care is just the latest vehicle (not as good as AGW) for progressives to keep chipping away at a society they consider totally flawed and unrepairable.
Posted by sntauri at 05/15/2009 @ 10:08am
You believe that you have a right for someone else to fund your health care.
Posted by plainbruce at 05/15/2009 @ 06:53am
hah!
and the chinese (well, your grandkids) fund your army!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2009 @ 11:28am
We sure can TRUST a new U.S.A. government health program to look out for the best intrest of the health of the rest of the world using OUR TAX DOLLARS!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/15/2009 @ 07:21am
RAPTOR!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2009 @ 11:31am
for progressives to keep chipping away at a society they consider totally flawed and unrepairable.---Posted by sntauri at 05/15/2009 @ 10:08am
So they're trying to change things because they think things are "unrepairable"?!!??!??!???!??
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 11:44am
So they're trying to change things because they think things are "unrepairable"?!!??!??!???!??
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 11:44am
Can't speak for Sntauri, but he is correct that the left thinks that capitalism is unrepairable. The Nation Magazine has devoted much to that theme recently.
http://www.thenation.com/search/?search=socialism
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 11:50am
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 08:48am
Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Food, clothing, and shelter come first. Does government pay your grocery bill? Does it pay your rent/mortgage? How can you have Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness if you don't have food to eat or a roof over your head? Why aren't you asking goverment to provide those basic needs first?
Posted by plainbruce at 05/15/2009 @ 11:56am
No, I believe in everyone pitching in so everyone can enjoy the benefits of modern civilization. I pay Medicare and Social Security taxes on my meager $8.50 an hour pay, but I don't complain. Why should you?
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 08:58am
You keep proving my point. Your "taxes on your meager $8.50 an hour pay" isn't going to cover your health care, thus you expect someone else to pay for it. Thus, you believe in a right to FUNDING for health care.
I understand that I'm arguing semantics, but I think it's an important distinction.
Posted by plainbruce at 05/15/2009 @ 12:07pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 09:29am
Considering that former health insurance employees have testified under oath that paying for treatment is considered a "loss" by that company, yes, that's exactly what I'm insinuating.
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 12:15pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 11:50am
Larry, you believe in laissez-faire capitalism of the 1890s sort and have agreed that you'd support 10 year olds working in un-regulated coal mines....
practically the entire world thought THAT needed to be "repaired".
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 12:16pm
Posted by plainbruce at 05/15/2009 @ 11:56am
Food, rent, etc. will never cost a year's salary for a day of use. Medical care can and does. Many more people cannot afford healthcare than cannot afford housing and food. This goes to you and this person as well.
Posted by sntauri at 05/15/2009 @ 10:08am
What has been the purpose of our incredible advances over the last couple centuries (hell, last few decades really) if we as a society and civilization do not advance just as much? Are we forever cursed to fend for ourselves? Or can we move onto something better and more enlightened? Ensuring that the population is healthy and thus able to live productive and meaningful lives is also a great way to increase economic output...how can you conservatives argue with that? Healthy people work better and more often.
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 12:27pm
Posted by plainbruce at 05/15/2009 @ 12:07pm
Ok, I'll agree with you. I do believe in a right to FUNDING for health care. My "taxes on my meager $8.50 an hour pay" (and my college scholarships and grants!) go to fund YOUR health care, if you get a tax deduction for purchasing healthcare through your employer via a pore-tax contribution. So, under the current system, you also believe in the right to others funding your healthcare. Anyone who uses pre-tax dollars to purchase health insurance is being subsidized by the rest of us, who don't do that but still pay income taxes. Enough semantics for you? Oh, and by the way, a Harvard professor argued this point on Fox Business yesterday. Feel free to challenge Katherine Baicker's views.
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 12:32pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 09:29am
In addition, corporations are legally bound to serve their stockholders' interests first, are they not?
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 12:37pm
Larry, you believe in laissez-faire capitalism of the 1890s sort and have agreed that you'd support 10 year olds working in un-regulated coal mines....
practically the entire world thought THAT needed to be "repaired".
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 12:16pm
Another misrepresentation of my views.
1. I have noted that it is constitutional to regulate the banks and the stock market, and commerce between the states.
2. You always conveniently leave out of the coal mining statement that:
a) I believe it is first and foremost a family issue and if the parents and the child are agreeable, it should be their decision
b) that said, I also stated that States have a right to regulate this kind of issue.
So you are once again misrepresenting my statements by placing them out of context (which is normal for leftists).
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 1:03pm
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 12:32pm
Ok, I'll agree with you. I do believe in a right to FUNDING for health care.
Oh, you are so close to opening up and telling us what you really want! Just a little more. Could it be that when you discover you have a "right", that in your view, there is an automatic requirement that you be provided with whatever resources you require to exercise that right?
Posted by sntauri at 05/15/2009 @ 1:05pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 1:03pm
And YOU conveniently leave IN that 'voluntary child labor'...is still child labor. And when the kid's family needs to EAT or keep the company store paid off, it's not that "voluntary".
You also leave out that if the State Government is paid off by the Mine Owners, they'd have little reason to support regulations...would they? And since you'd oppose Federal campaign finance reform and "leave it to the States" (who wouldn't bite the hand)....
in the end, you WOULD support 10 year olds working in un-regulated mines.
But glad to see the banks and Stock Market thing, since it IS a liberal view of the Commerce Clause, isn't it. Given there is nothing about "Stock Markets" in the Federalist Papers...on which you rely for all other government intervention questions.
Maybe there's hope yet for you????
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 1:39pm
Posted by sntauri at 05/15/2009 @ 1:05pm
Sorry, nope, I believe in conservation of resources, from water, to electricity, to medicine, to ensure there is enough for others, and in the case of medicine I purchase, to only use it when I genuinely need it. And are you tacitly agreeing with my statement that you believe in a right to funding for healthcare too? How nice of you.
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 1:40pm
But glad to see the banks and Stock Market thing, since it IS a liberal view of the Commerce Clause, isn't it. Given there is nothing about "Stock Markets" in the Federalist Papers...on which you rely for all other government intervention questions.
Maybe there's hope yet for you????
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 1:39pm
Wrong, it's very straightforward in the Constitution in article 1, Section 8, and not just the commerce clause.
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 2:00pm
Does government pay your grocery bill? Does it pay your rent/mortgage? How can you have Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness if you don't have food to eat or a roof over your head? Why aren't you asking goverment to provide those basic needs first? Posted by plainbruce at 05/15/2009 @ 11:56am | ignore this person | warn this person
ah der Herr Scheindoktor.
actually for the poorest, gov't does pay for their food, stamps you know. and for those who live in public housing projects, the gov't picks up the rent check. in part, to be true, but that does answer your phony question.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 2:02pm
And YOU conveniently leave IN that 'voluntary child labor'...is still child labor. And when the kid's family needs to EAT or keep the company store paid off, it's not that "voluntary".
You also leave out that if the State Government is paid off by the Mine Owners, they'd have little reason to support regulations...would they? And since you'd oppose Federal campaign finance reform and "leave it to the States" (who wouldn't bite the hand)....
This is a childish response.
Which company store would that be Mask, Sams Club or Costco?
you want to explain how a Mine Owner pays a bribe to a State Govt? Are you saying a Governor?
And wouldn't that be a crime? getting the mine owner and the governor put into prison?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 2:04pm
the prophet hates kids....
TO THE MINES!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2009 @ 2:28pm
Which company store would that be Mask, Sams Club or Costco?
---The company store that the mine owner, controlling the town via the mayor and city council, ALLOWS to be the town's only store. You HAVE heard of "company stores", right?
you want to explain how a Mine Owner pays a bribe to a State Govt? Are you saying a Governor?
----By taking a big pile of money and "donating it to their campaign".
And wouldn't that be a crime? getting the mine owner and the governor put into prison?
----Not if the State Govt. and the Governor write the laws, Larry. You DO oppose FEDERAL campaign laws, right?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 2:04pm
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 2:42pm
practically the entire world thought THAT needed to be "repaired".
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 12:16pm
Jonah Goldberg makes a great point on this issue.
Practically the whole world treated children as property and used them to their best advantage. Back before there was much social mobility in the US, the children of the poor didn't really need schooling' because there was no opporunity to get the kind of job that benefited from schools and the parents discounted the value of a child enjoying reading, philosophy, ect. So they put them to work early and only rich kids went to school.
But what changed for America was industrialization. More and more machines were doing the work and more and more they required adults to run them. The value of children as workers plummeted. By the time the US passed child-labor laws, about 95% of all kids were in school already.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 3:09pm
---The company store that the mine owner, controlling the town via the mayor and city council, ALLOWS to be the town's only store. You HAVE heard of "company stores", right?
you want to explain how a Mine Owner pays a bribe to a State Govt? Are you saying a Governor?
----By taking a big pile of money and "donating it to their campaign".
And wouldn't that be a crime? getting the mine owner and the governor put into prison?
----Not if the State Govt. and the Governor write the laws, Larry. You DO oppose FEDERAL campaign laws, right?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 2:04pm
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 2:42pm
You're assuming a hypothetical on "company stores" that is highly improbable with today's MARKET economy.
Just as outrageous is your hypothetical on campaign laws. Why are they any more likely at the state level to be corrupt than federally?
It seems that SCOTUS and many of the states already disagree with you.
<Yet the courts in recent years have rejected free-speech arguments in campaign-finance cases, saying that states have a compelling interest in imposing strict limits on spending. And recent scandals have galvanized public support for that view, with some voters and legislators willing to tolerate a curb on political speech in exchange for clamping down on cronyism.
Colorado voters in November passed a ballot initiative restricting campaign contributions from state contractors. Illinois also enacted a law this month putting limits on contractors' donations to state officials. The new statute came weeks after federal authorities accused Gov. Blagojevich of solicitation of bribery, including allegedly trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat.>
http://tinyurl.com/94pcuo
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 3:12pm
actually for the poorest, gov't does pay for their food, stamps you know. and for those who live in public housing projects, the gov't picks up the rent check. in part, to be true, but that does answer your phony question.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 2:02pm
But these are not provided as rights. The SCOTUS has even ruled you don't have a right to Social Security. Congress could abolish the program tomorrow through legislation and individuals would have no legal recourse (throught the courts) to reinstate it. They'd have to elect a new Congress.
Now, that's not going to happen, but as a matter of fact, welfare and SS payment recipients to not have a Constitutional right to transfer payments, only a statutory right.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 3:18pm
Why does the type or right matter? Because before you can calim you are owed something you have to be able to point to the legal claim for your right.
If you own property, property rights go back to common law if I'm not mistaken. If you believe you are owed a OASDI pension payment, you can point to the 1935 SS Act you say here is why I am owed the money.
If you want to shout Bush is an A-hole and you get arrested for it, you can go to court and point to the first amendment and show them your right to free speech.
Now zman says he has a right to money to pay for helath care. Can you point to the Consitution or to a particular statute that backs that statement up.
No, you can't. Maybe you believe that the US should change the laws and create such a right for you. That is a legitimate opinion. But it is not the same thing as simple declaring that the right exists.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 3:24pm
Frosty, the Canadian right to health care is containted in the Candian Charter on Rights. Is that correct?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 3:27pm
the whole right to health care is a red herring.
we, the people have the right to decide what we wish to spend our tax money on. when we decide to pay for the health insurance of all residents, we have every right to do so.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 4:21pm
Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 4:21pm
Good way to look at it, and less confusing or controversial than the way I put it, thanks.
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 6:02pm
you're doing fine, zmann.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 6:56pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 3:24pm
Technically the right does exist, as laid out by Article...25, I think, of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It doesn't have the legal force of a treaty, but the precedence is there. But what right ever existed before someone simply declared it? Rights at their most basic level are nothing but abstractions thought up by people, just like laws, value (money), etc.
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 7:04pm
the whole right to health care is a red herring.
we, the people have the right to decide what we wish to spend our tax money on. when we decide to pay for the health insurance of all residents, we have every right to do so.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 4:21pm
that is wrong. We only have the right to petition Congress and influence our Congress to pass laws and appropriate the funds to enact and carryout those laws within the constraints of the US Constitution.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 7:05pm
Rights at their most basic level are nothing but abstractions thought up by people, just like laws, value (money), etc.
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 7:04pm
Ummm. You better get some remedial progressive training. An almost uncountable number (many waiting to be discovered) or rights exist at the most fundamental level because you are a human being. Progressives will admit to the Constitution describing things that the Government cannot do, but also find a nearly infinite number of things the Government must do for you. And there aren't just abstractions. They are as fundamental as the speed of light, Planck's Constant, and the Non-Reciprocal Law of Expectation. They just need to be discovered and ordered by activist judges. Consult your Progressive Handbook before proclaiming some kind of limitation on rights.
Posted by sntauri at 05/15/2009 @ 7:26pm
Anyone who uses pre-tax dollars to purchase health insurance is being subsidized by the rest of us, who don't do that but still pay income taxes. Enough semantics for you? Oh, and by the way, a Harvard professor argued this point on Fox Business yesterday. Feel free to challenge Katherine Baicker's views.
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 12:32pm
There's no need to argue the point. I would agree completely. I have heard economists, health care bean counters, etc. make this claim from time to time. They point to the WWII-era price and wage controls (when employers began offering health insurance tax-free as a benefit) as the beginning of our problems with health care costs. (I also see it as a starting point in discussing the law of unintended consequences when it comes to government involvement, but I imagine that's for another thread.)
Posted by plainbruce at 05/15/2009 @ 7:58pm
actually for the poorest, gov't does pay for their food, stamps you know. and for those who live in public housing projects, the gov't picks up the rent check. in part, to be true, but that does answer your phony question.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 2:02pm
And government does pay for the poorest when it comes to health care.
Next.
Posted by plainbruce at 05/15/2009 @ 8:10pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 3:12pm
Larry....why were coal mines un-regulated BEFORE the Federal Government stepped in 1941 to force it?
If your "everything would be fine if the State's are in charge" theory is correct....we would have NEVER needed a Bureau of Mines inspection regime.
or are you going to claim everything was fine and dandy in the mines before the 40s?
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 9:04pm
gov't pays for the poor, the old, all service members, and all gov't workers. the overhead for these programs is far lower than the private system, so switching to single payer will save money.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 9:05pm
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 9:04pm
The Federal govt was overstepping it's boundaries instead of letting the states take care of issues.
BTW, the Bureau of Mines no longer exists. It ceased in 1995.
Also, it was the Federal Govt's mineral research dept.
For most of the 20th century, the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) was the primary United States Government agency conducting scientific research and disseminating information on the extraction, processing, use, and conservation of mineral resources.
http://tinyurl.com/yrmpqz
What you endorse now is:
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is an agency of the United States Department of Labor which administers the provisions of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977
In 1891, the United States Congress passed the first federal statute governing mine safety. The 1891 law was relatively modest legislation that applied only to mines in U.S. territories, and, among other things, established minimum ventilation requirements at underground coal mines and prohibited operators from employing children under 12 years of age.
In 1910, Congress established the Bureau of Mines as a new agency in the Department of the Interior. The Bureau was charged with the responsibility to conduct research and to reduce accidents in the coal mining industry, but was given no inspection authority until 1941, when Congress empowered federal inspectors to enter mines.
The Federal Coal Mine Safety Act of 1952 provided for annual inspections in certain underground coal mines, and gave the Bureau limited enforcement authority, including power to issue violation notices and imminent danger withdrawal orders.
http://tinyurl.com/ry4aas
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 9:29pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 9:29pm
Larry, aside from the history lesson...
did you answer my question?
Were the mines safe before Federal intervention? Or not so much?
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 9:33pm
Posted by sntauri at 05/15/2009 @ 7:26pm
Uh, if you say so. Grow up.
Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 9:45pm
Larry, aside from the history lesson...
did you answer my question?
Were the mines safe before Federal intervention? Or not so much?
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 9:33pm
It's not relevant to my point. They could make them 100% safe and it wouldn't change that the Federal involvement is unconstitutiona and oversteps State authority.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 9:56pm
They point to the WWII-era price and wage controls
the price controls are a myth. industry and commerce did not cooperate.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/16/2009 @ 10:58am
"After 17 days and still no appointment for a heart cath, I died from a massive heart attack. (G*****N if that didn't piss me off.)
Which do I prefer? The US system!"
---plainSTUPID, 05/14/2009 @ 10:59pm
Leave it to a mewling CroMag conservaLoser like plain STUPID, indignantly but haltingly reading from NRO cue cards, to use a phony example that initially poses as a real one to "prove" his claim.
The thread is thick with people describing what they have seen in flesh and blood fact in medical facilities in sveral countries. Other threads on this topic have wheeled out an avalanche of statistical evidence. The upshot of the evidence is that the US performs poorly by international standards. If a private system was superior, as they loudly grunt, it then would be child's play to romp from one piece of evidence that says so to the next. The conservaLosers do not do this beacuse r-e-al evidence is not there. But it does not stop conservaLosers from doing what they do best: Making things up. Changing the topic to sometime macabre and weird, like Al Gores' gestures. Yelling and screaming and carry one. It is what they do, what they are.
Yes, you see, conservaLosers always opt for their really weird, anti-social and sadistic phantasies over the reality of this world. Doghsit rightwing phantasies like...
...WMDs in Saddam's Iraq, the author of 9/11!
...Evolution is a fraud!
...They'll greet us on the streets of Baghdad with sweets and cake!
...The public is going to swoon over George W Loser's Reaganesque charms (David Horwitz insisted!)!
...Abstinence education is key to halting out-of-wedlock births in their tracks!
...Clinton smoked Vince Foster in the park and re-education camps are next on the agenda!
...And on and on and on ...
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/16/2009 @ 3:04pm
Clearly, some parts of this debate don't mean anything:
1) Example wars/ arguing that "X system has flaws." I think that's actually what annoys me the most about the CPC commercial. In the British/Canadian system (grouping them together for the moment), clearly some people will get the raw end of the deal. Some people will have to wait for extended lengths of time, etc. Similarly, in the US system, some people will have to wait for treatment or simply never get it at all. In either system, harms will exist. That's not the relevant question. The question is whether the harms of X specific health-care system outweigh the benefits of said system.
2) Whether health-care is a right. If you're using a positivist standard, it is clearly not a right in the status-quo U.S., particularly since a UN document doesn't even purport to create any kind of binding positive entitlement to things. However, no one is making this argument; the question is whether there is a MORAL right to health-care. Contra sntauri, believing in independently-existent moral rights isn't a specifically liberal concept (see Declaration of Independence). The relevant question is whether individuals in the U.S. have a moral facilitative right to the money and labor of others, specifically taxpayers and doctors respectively.
Can you have a claim on the labor of specific others? More or less, though I'm pretty sure you can't sue a policeman for failing to prosecute someone who might hurt you or even failing to come to your aid. The relevant question is whether there is moral and practical justification for a right to the specific services of doctors. That's what this discussion should be about.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/16/2009 @ 9:58pm
Strange, my post from earlier today seems to have disappeared..
Posted by zmann at 05/16/2009 @ 10:46pm
we, the people have the right to decide what we wish to spend our tax money on. when we decide to pay for the health insurance of all residents, we have every right to do so.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 4:21pm
Nobody is disagreeing with you. The point Larry and I are making is that unless we decide to amend the Constitution to include healthcare in the enumerated powers, the legal and proper way to pay for healthcare is for the states to provide it.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/17/2009 @ 07:48am
I have not had time to read through the days blather, I assume the regulars have their regular and well known diatribes. I also assume Swededn came up somewhere along the way, as it usually does in these pissing matches, so I thought I would throw out this tidbit from the xtian monitor:
"Eisenhower also helped to propagate a number of myths in the '60s when he said that Swedes were ‘addicted to sin, socialism, and suicide,' " says Brian Palmer, professor of anthropology at Sweden's Uppsala University.
"To speak of Sweden as socialist today is pretty far off the mark," he says. "Neoliberal reforms have gone much further here in some sectors than in the US. Sweden has become a sort of laboratory for privatization in a way that the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute could only dream of."
Posted by crabwalk at 05/17/2009 @ 09:57am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/17/2009 @ 07:48am
And of course many (red) states have not the slightest interest in serving their citizens, only corporations.
Posted by zmann at 05/17/2009 @ 10:25am
I also assume Swededn came up somewhere along the way, as it usually does in these pissing matches
Posted by crabwalk at 05/17/2009 @ 09:57am
Sweden, sometimes. Usually it is KVH's favorite, Finland.
Posted by sntauri at 05/17/2009 @ 10:39am
The U.S. privatized healthcare system has all the drawbacks of the NHS. Bureaucracy is the chief cause of high prices in the U.S. - other than the costs being fixed arbitrarily by suppliers (what the market will bear).
For the rich this presents no problem. For the middle class - even those heavily-insured - a serious or prolonged illness can easily break the bank. The rest - about 50 million (at least) - are left to their just deserts for having failed at the Capitalist Game. This includes children, of course.
Healthcare is a fundamental right - one even more basic than education. When you're sick, medical treatment is as necessary as food and water. Without it, you die.
Private medicine makes wealth the criterion for a person's right to live.
Posted by PhatLvis at 05/18/2009 @ 05:54am
I remember a time when Americans had a "right" to a fair trial, and habeas was a recognized fundamental right of all.
If that can change, surely we can add rights as needed.
Unless the compassionate right wing fundy Jesus freaks object to treating the poor like people. do you object Larry?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/18/2009 @ 06:51am
I remember a time when Americans had a "right" to a fair trial, and habeas was a recognized fundamental right of all.
If that can change, surely we can add rights as needed.
Unless the compassionate right wing fundy Jesus freaks object to treating the poor like people. do you object Larry?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/18/2009 @ 06:51am
False dilemmas
We have not removed the right to a fair trial-can you cite the law or the SCOTUS ruling that did so?
Habeas has never been acknowledged as a fundamental right in war-by any nation or international law.
Certainly you can add rights, amend the constitution as it provides-Why do you keep arguing against what the constitution directs?
Why would I object? It's part of what I do every week? It is illegal use of taxpayer money that I object to.
There is nothing that I'm aware of that prevents private citizens, businesses, organizations, and State and local govts from helping the needy. Has there been a law from Congress or Executive Order banning all of these from helping the poor that you know of and I don't?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/18/2009 @ 09:17am
Rights. Interesting topic.
Why will it NOT violate my rights, when the new Single Payer Gov't run Health delivery (progressive dream) system makes it a criminal offense for me to seek, and for a doctor to provide service to me if I offer to pay for it? This will happen for two reasons: 1) cost control, and 2) pathological lust for egalitarianism.
Posted by sntauri at 05/18/2009 @ 11:13am
Posted by sntauri at 05/18/2009 @ 11:13am
Because those fears will not come to pass.
Heckuva job Brownie will not be asked to head a SP system. I hope.
Why are you against saving money, and lives? Does your ideology trump that? ---
"Habeas has never been acknowledged as a fundamental right in war-by any nation or international law. "
Show me the war declaration.
What "liberties" are you finger fighting for?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/18/2009 @ 12:12pm