Obama vs. Clinton, Edwards and Paul Krugman

posted by John Nichols on 11/30/2007 @ 3:52pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (94)

Subscribe Now

Give New York Times columnist Paul Krugman a little credit for pointing out the uncomfortable fact that Illinois Senator Barack Obama is campaigning against universal health care.

Krugman explained in Friday's editions of The New York Times:

The central question is whether there should be a health insurance "mandate" -- a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don't think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.

Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they're currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it.

And it's not just a matter of principle. As a practical matter, letting people opt out if they don't feel like buying insurance would make insurance substantially more expensive for everyone else.

Here's why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance -- then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn't turn them away, because Mr. Obama's plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone.

As a result, people who did the right thing and bought insurance when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn't sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care.

In other words, when Mr. Obama declares that "the reason people don't have health insurance isn't because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it," he's saying something that is mostly true now -- but wouldn't be true under his plan.

The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning. Still, as I said, advocates of health care reform were willing to cut Mr. Obama some slack.

Krugman argues that it is time to stop cutting Obama that slack because the senator has begun defending his flawed plan by echoing right-wing talking points.

"Mr. Obama, who just two weeks ago was telling audiences that his plan was essentially identical to the Edwards and Clinton plans, is attacking his rivals and claiming that his plan is superior. It isn't -- and his attacks amount to cheap shots<"argues Krugman.

"First, Mr. Obama claims that his plan does much more to control costs than his rivals' plans. In fact, all three plans include impressive cost control measures. Second, Mr. Obama claims that mandates won't work, pointing out that many people don't have car insurance despite state requirements that all drivers be insured. Um, is he saying that states shouldn't require that drivers have insurance? If not, what's his point?"

Obama's point is, of course, a political one. He is trying, desperately, to position himself as the one serious challenger to Clinton. To do that, he must distinguish himself both from the national front-runner and from Edwards, who has attracted significant union and grassroots support with his economic populism.

Obama remains, in many senses, the most appealing Democratic contender. And there is good reason to believe that he could emerge in coming weeks as the most serious challenger to Clinton. He could, yet, be the Democratic nominee and the president.

But to do that, Obama must get serious about the major issues. It is not enough to just talk about "a different kind of politics." Obama must practice it, and to do so he must develop coherent plans on issues such as health care.

Obama would not have had a hard time coming up with a better plan than that of Clinton or Edwards, both of which refuse to take the logical step of developing a universal, cost-effective and genuinely health-care oriented single-payer system, as Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich proposes.

But Obama has not tried to distinguish himself by being better than Clinton or Edwards.

Instead, as Krugman notes, "What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama's caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan."

Rather than acknowledge the flaws in his own plan, Obama has attacked Clinton and Edwards in language that does indeed "sound like Rudy Giuliani inveighing against 'socialized medicine.'" And Krugman is right to call the senator out on his wrongheaded approach.

Comments (94)

As far as Krugman goes....like this recent article in the Washington Post--

Krugman vs. Krugman

By Ruth Marcus Wednesday, November 21, 2007; Page A17

In liberal Democratic circles, the debate over Social Security has taken a dangerous "don't worry, be happy" turn.

The argument has two equally dishonest components. The first is to deny that Social Security faces a daunting financing problem -- one that will be much easier to fix (and less onerous for the low-income retirees that the head-in-the-sanders purport to care about) sooner rather than later. The second is to mischaracterize the arguments of those who advocate responsible action, accusing them of hyping the system's woes.

One prominent practitioner of this misguided approach is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. "Inside the Beltway, doomsaying about Social Security -- declaring that the program as we know it can't survive the onslaught of retiring baby boomers -- is regarded as a sort of badge of seriousness, a way of showing how statesmanlike and tough-minded you are," Krugman wrote last week. "In fact, the whole Beltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population is misguided."

Somebody should introduce Paul Krugman to . . . Paul Krugman.

"[A] decade from now the population served by those programs [Social Security and Medicare] will explode. . . . Because of those facts, merely balancing the federal budget would be a deeply irresponsible policy -- because that would leave us unprepared for the demographic deluge, with no alternative once it arrives except to raise taxes and slash benefits." (July 11, 2001)

"Broadly speaking, the next administration . . . will face two big economic tests. One . . . is whether it can stick to a fiscal policy, including a policy toward Social Security, that prepares this country for the demographic deluge." (Nov. 12, 2000)

"The reason Social Security is in trouble is that the system has a large 'hole' -- basically a hidden debt -- because previous generations of retirees were paid benefits out of the contributions of younger workers . . . a multitrillion-dollar debt that somebody has to pay." (Oct. 1, 2000)

"[B]ecause the baby boomers' contributions were used to provide generous benefits to earlier generations, there isn't enough money in the system to pay the benefits promised to the boomers themselves." (June 21, 2000)

In addition to this fiscal amnesia, Krugman misrepresents responsible voices in the debate.

First, he quoted a new paper by Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag and CBO analyst Philip Ellis. Notwithstanding "all the attention paid to demographic challenges," they conclude, "our country's financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs."

True, but Krugman omits any mention of Orszag's latest book, inconveniently titled "Saving Social Security." Orszag and co-author Peter Diamond wrote that "Social Security's projected financial difficulties are real and that addressing those difficulties sooner rather than later would make sensible reforms easier and more likely."

Krugman then takes on The Post for an October editorial that, in his skewed retelling, castigated Hillary Clinton"for, um, not being panicky about Social Security."

Posted by Mask at 11/30/2007 @ 11:04am
Even Krugman is ignoring the one candidate - Dennis Kucinich - with a simple, consistent and profiteering-proof reform: Medicare for everyone, or Single-Payer, as it's known in Canada.

Posted by samcrossett at 11/30/2007 @ 11:05am
Posted by SAMCROSSETT 11/30/2007 @ 11:05am

Two questions-

1. How's Dennis polling in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina?

2. Now...maybe there's a REASON to ignore him?

Posted by Mask at 11/30/2007 @ 11:18am
i sure hope we never have to deal with all this nonsense up here.

good luck, brothers and sisters.

better steer clear on mcdonald's. that's the best health insurance.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 11:29am
And we won't even get into the specific flaws in that system.

Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 11/30/2007 @ 11:24am

yep. we lose the greedy ones.

good riddance.

"TORONTO -- The Ontario government allowed the number of doctors earning more than $476,000 annually to jump 56 per cent last year -- some averaging salaries upwards of $718,000 -- in order to ease the pressure of a shortage of physicians, Health Minister George Smitherman said Wednesday."

damn! if you can't live on $500,000...........................

the shortage of physicians inn ontario is a direct result of this:

"TORONTO, Oct. 2 /CNW/ - Today, Howard Hampton's NDP demonstrated their hypocritical selective amnesia when talking about the supply of doctors in Ontario. After all, it was Howard Hampton at the cabinet table and the NDP who cut medical school spaces by 13% or 76 spots. If those spots had never been cut, Ontario would have over 500 more doctors today. What's worse: the NDP make no commitment in their election platform to increase medical school spaces. Here's what the Ontario Medical Association has to say about the cause of the doctor shortage:

<< "As the OMA predicted at the time, 10 years later this decision itself bears much of the blame for the current shortage of all types of physicians in Ontario, including the one million patients who do not have access to a family physician." - OMA President, November 10, 2004 (National Post)"

which is this:

"the NDP (supposedly left wing, i'll never forgive them for this):

Cut $268 million from hospitals in 1994/95

Cut over 8,000 hospital beds

Cut the number of medical school spaces by 13% increasing the doctor shortage

Cut the number of foreign-trained physician spaces in Ontario

Ripped up the collective agreements of doctors and nurses

Cut funding for mental heath - $23.3 million in 1992/93 and $42.4 million in 1994/95

Their 1994-95 budget stripped $30 million from psychiatric services and a further $6.8 million from community based mental health commitment

Increased nursing home fees for 50,000 seniors by $330 per month"

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 11:39am
And we won't even get into the specific flaws in that system.

Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 11/30/2007 @ 11:24am

well, my family would much rather deal with a flawed system, which btw has treated us great, than have to choose between paying for health insurance at for-profit rates or eating.

talk about flaws........................

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 11:40am
Good point, Mask. Dennis' lack of popularity with others is indeed a good reason (for sheep) to ignore him.

But Krugman isn't a sheep; he denounced Bush for lying about his 'middle-class' tax cuts, the phony Social Security 'crisis', the 'threat' posed by Iraq etc. Now Krugman is denouncing the candidates favored by the corporate media, whose 'reforms' are just more Republican-style giveaways for profiteers.

And Krugman is right when he points out the obvious demographic challenges to both Social Security and Medicare, the obvious fix for both being to index the income cap on payroll taxes: as incomes rise, the income taxed (currently capped at around $90k) should also increase. Medicare is in worse condition than Social Security due to profiteering, not demographics; requiring Americans not covered by Medicare to purchase insurance from profiteers just might, however, convince enough voters to finally opt for single-payer over yet another Hillary-style 'reform'.

Posted by samcrossett at 11/30/2007 @ 11:45am
The Kucinich single payer plan is the simplest solution and the one that would require the least redtape and have the least money going to the insurance companies. The reason other countries like Canada loose physicians to the US has nothing to do with their policies. It's because our system encourages all of the money grubbers to come to this country where they are free to gouge patients. Canada is probably better off without them.

Posted by lnh at 11/30/2007 @ 11:45am
Paul Krugman,

You're a Clinton Schill. What you fail to mention is that under Hillary's healthcare plan, everyone will be forced to buy insurance, not just those that are healthy, but even those who cannot afford it. You also fail to mention that Obama's plan is the only health plan that lowers the costs of healthcare. And, you conveniently leave out the fact that only Hillary has accepted money from the HMOs, and that her health plan will produce windfall profits for them. 47 million new clients who are mandated to purchase their services seems like a damn good return on their money.

Hillary's proposed health care plan makes a bad situation worse. It empowers the HMOs instead of the American people. Hillary is the candidate of the special interests. Obama is the candidate for the American people. For those of you who are sick and tired of greedy CEO's writing our laws and enriching themselves at our expense go to www.barackobama.com. Find and contact your local Barack Obama campaign office and volunteer your time for freedom from the corporations' control of your constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties.

Support Obama for a new America.

Posted by stoplying at 11/30/2007 @ 11:51am
How can Obama's plan reduce the cost of health care without addressing the 'dumping' of the uninsured onto Medicaid, or the inability of the uninsured to obtain preventative care?

The current system is based on denying care to the insured for the greater profit of HMOs, while the uninsured are 'socialized', with state governments picking up their tab. A 'voluntary' plan like Obama's would only continue the shell game currently played by private insurers, the Feds and the states.

Posted by samcrossett at 11/30/2007 @ 12:06pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 11/30/2007 @ 11:58am

obviously, one should be recompensated for their labours.

however:

for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit. for profit.

or

Ὄμνυμι Ἀπόλλωνα ἰητρὸν, καὶ Ἀσκληπιὸν, καὶ Ὑγείαν, καὶ Πανάκειαν, καὶ θεοὺς πάντας τε καὶ πάσας, ἵστορας ποιεύμενος, ἐπιτελέα ποιήσειν κατὰ δύναμιν καὶ κρίσιν ἐμὴν ὅρκον τόνδε καὶ ξυγγραφὴν τήνδε. Ἡγήσασθαι μὲν τὸν διδάξαντά με τὴν τέχνην ταύτην ἴσα γενέτῃσιν ἐμοῖσι, καὶ βίου κοινώσασθαι, καὶ χρεῶν χρηίζοντι μετάδοσιν ποιήσασθαι, καὶ γένος τὸ ἐξ ωὐτέου ἀδελφοῖς ἴσον ἐπικρινέειν ἄῤῥεσι, καὶ διδάξειν τὴν τέχνην ταύτην, ἢν χρηίζωσι μανθάνειν, ἄνευ μισθοῦ καὶ ξυγγραφῆς, παραγγελίης τε καὶ ἀκροήσιος καὶ τῆς λοιπῆς ἁπάσης μαθήσιος μετάδοσιν ποιήσασθαι υἱοῖσί τε ἐμοῖσι, καὶ τοῖσι τοῦ ἐμὲ διδάξαντος, καὶ μαθηταῖσι συγγεγραμμέν οισί τε καὶ ὡρκισμένοις νόμῳ ἰητρικῷ, ἄλλῳ δὲ οὐδενί. Διαιτήμασί τε χρήσομαι ἐπ' ὠφελείῃ καμνόντων κατὰ δύναμιν καὶ κρίσιν ἐμὴν, ἐπὶ δηλήσει δὲ καὶ ἀδικίῃ εἴρξειν. Οὐ δώσω δὲ οὐδὲ φάρμακον οὐδενὶ αἰτηθεὶς θανάσιμον, οὐδὲ ὑφηγήσομαι ξυμβουλίην τοιήνδε. Ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδὲ γυναικὶ πεσσὸν φθόριον δώσω. Ἁγνῶς δὲ καὶ ὁσίως διατηρήσω βίον τὸν ἐμὸν καὶ τέχνην τὴν ἐμήν. Οὐ τεμέω δὲ οὐδὲ μὴν λιθιῶντας, ἐκχωρήσω δὲ ἐργάτῃσιν ἀνδράσι πρήξιος τῆσδε. Ἐς οἰκίας δὲ ὁκόσας ἂν ἐσίω, ἐσελεύσομαι ἐπ' ὠφελείῃ καμνόντων, ἐκτὸς ἐὼν πάσης ἀδικίης ἑκουσίης καὶ φθορίης, τῆς τε ἄλλης καὶ ἀφροδισίων ἔργων ἐπί τε γυναικείων σωμάτων καὶ ἀνδρῴων, ἐλευθέρων τε καὶ δούλων. Ἃ δ' ἂν ἐν θεραπείῃ ἢ ἴδω, ἢ ἀκούσω, ἢ καὶ ἄνευ θεραπηίης κατὰ βίον ἀνθρώπων, ἃ μὴ χρή ποτε ἐκλαλέεσθαι ἔξω, σιγήσομαι, ἄῤῥητα ἡγεύμενος εἶναι τὰ τοιαῦτα. Ὅρκον μὲν οὖν μοι τόνδε ἐπιτελέα ποιέοντι, καὶ μὴ ξυγχέοντι, εἴη ἐπαύρασθαι καὶ βίου καὶ τέχνης δοξαζομένῳ παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐς τὸν αἰεὶ χρόνον. παραβαίνοντι δὲ καὶ ἐπιορκοῦντι, τἀναντία τουτέων. α τουτέων. α τουτέων.

like i said. our system has been great!

excellent! never a problem! never a wait!

kudos to all the professionals i've dealt with here over the years!

GREAT! GREAT! GREAT! GREAT! GREAT! GREAT! GREAT! GREAT!

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 12:13pm
FROSTY

Forgive me if you've elaborated on this before, but how do you feel about your healthcare?

I figure it makes more sense to actually hear it from a Canadian than from corporate apologists or scaremongers who continually pepper their drivel with the phrase "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!".

(I am willing to wait in a long line for your response.)

Posted by drhammer at 11/30/2007 @ 12:13pm
Cool...

You answered before I could post my question.

Posted by drhammer at 11/30/2007 @ 12:16pm
Posted by SAMCROSSETT 11/30/2007 @ 11:45am

Well, the point of the article was that NOW Krugman is a "No biggie. SocSec will be just fine" happy talker...while just a while back he was AMONG those he called "doomsayers" and was obsessed "with the fiscal burden of an aging population".

Posted by Mask at 11/30/2007 @ 12:18pm
BTW, once we down in the USA get that wonderful "single payer" universal health care, and all the "greedy" doctors flee the system...

I guess we just hope that the "altruistic" doctors who stay in the System are....the GOOD ones, huh?

Posted by Mask at 11/30/2007 @ 12:20pm
"...Obama's plan is the only health plan that lowers the costs of healthcare."

Posted by STOPLYING 11/30/2007 @ 11:51am

Are you asserting that Obama's plan would reduce healthcare costs more than Kucinich's?

(Because I would have trouble believing that.)

Posted by drhammer at 11/30/2007 @ 12:21pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 11/30/2007 @ 12:13pm

a slight correction to my 12:13............

one must wait a little while for a specialist's appointment for non-life-threatening deals.

but i live in the canadian equivalent of gary, indiana, so it's hard to convince a specialist to locate here instead of maybe vancouver or montreal.

nonetheless, it's been great.

and if you're in serious trouble, you get serious attention, seriously quickly.

so, from my personal experience, i'll give the system a B+.

how do you grade your HMO?

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 12:22pm
You answered before I could post my question.

Posted by DRHAMMER 11/30/2007 @ 12:16pm

you should ask my wife about that..........................

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 12:23pm
Posted by MASK 11/30/2007 @ 12:20pm

but, to where will they flee?

if someone's more interested in more than $500,000 per year than helping people, they can't be a good doctor because their heart is too corrupt.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 12:26pm
"How do you grade your HMO?"

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/30/2007 @ 12:22pm

Well, the doctors who have treated us over the years have been mostly OK. Not inspiring, but they haven't left any sponges behind.

Administratively, on a scale of one to ten, I rate the HMO's I've had to deal with as less than shit.

And while my employers are very generous, and pay for my family's health insurance in its entirety, I know that their costs have increased heinously in the 5 years that I have worked for them. This past August, they had to switch to a hybrid HSA/HMO system in order to sidestep a 30% increase. Five years from now...who knows?

Posted by drhammer at 11/30/2007 @ 12:41pm
"you should ask my wife about that.........................."

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/30/2007 @ 12:23pm

No thanks.

Let's just give her my wife's number, then get together for some liver damage.

Posted by drhammer at 11/30/2007 @ 12:49pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/30/2007 @ 12:26pm

Or they're up to their eyeballs in debt from medical school?

Also, given your tax code, how much of that $500K do they get to KEEP?

Regardless, I've always figured that there was little chance that doctors under a Government-run universal health care system (those that stay in it), won't become exactly what other providers of social services (i.e. social workers) become....tired, over-worked, and eventually burnt out from endless demand and little pay.

And those "greedy" docs?....well, like most countries with a Gov't run system, there'll be a private system ("spas" is what I've anticipated they will be labelled), wayyyyyyyyy out-priced for the common folk, and that's where THOSE guys will go work.

So again, the rested, well-paid, state-of-the-art, HAPPY doctors will go there...

and the State System will have the other kind.

Posted by Mask at 11/30/2007 @ 12:53pm
Obama would not have had a hard time coming up with a better plan than that of Clinton or Edwards, both of which refuse to take the logical step of developing a universal, cost-effective and genuinely health-care oriented single-payer system, as Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich proposes.

Your argument or premise for argument is that mandated health insurance is feasible at all. How is Hillary going to pay for this? Raising taxes? Don't forget we haven't even come up with a "fiscally responsible" plan to begin retiring war debt. Clinton sees no cuts in military spending and an ongoing occupation of Iraq. You have got to be joking that we have got the tax money to pay for this. What about social security funding? Promises....promises.....we have all heard it before. At least Edwards advocates withdrawal from Iraq which might stop the gross waste of money on MIC so that we might start to address spending for social concerns. Hillary thinks we can have it all. This is a serious candidate? Sorry, I don't want to hear any more BS thank you, and Clinton's mandated plan has a snowball's chance in hell.

Posted by OneVote at 11/30/2007 @ 1:07pm
Single-payer is not government run, for the 9,000th time. It's government insurance. The providers still work for themselves or private practices or hospitals, etc., etc.

And the lack of enough spaces in medical schools has been a scandal in this country for decades, a major way that doctors were able to control the supply and therefore drive up their compensation. Free market, my ass.

Posted by cka2nd at 11/30/2007 @ 1:09pm
Posted by MASK 11/30/2007 @ 12:53pm

whatever,

like i said,

our care has been great.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 1:13pm
so because kucinich isn't polling well in three states, that means his ideas are not worthy of debate?

Posted by darladoon at 11/30/2007 @ 1:22pm
Single-payer is not government run, for the 9,000th time. It's government insurance. The providers still work for themselves or private practices or hospitals, etc., etc.----Posted by CKA2ND 11/30/2007 @ 1:09pm

So there'll be no Government oversight...regulation....rules....control....

they'll just write out the checks to the doctors, no questions asked?

Posted by Mask at 11/30/2007 @ 1:29pm
so because kucinich isn't polling well in three states, that means his ideas are not worthy of debate?----Posted by DARLADOON 11/30/2007 @ 1:22pm

No, it just means those ideas aren't going to "go anywhere".

Posted by Mask at 11/30/2007 @ 1:30pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 11/30/2007 @ 1:51pm

aren't you really worried about making less money?

you is a doc, ain't youse?

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 1:59pm
WRT your earlier post: It sounds to me like the Canadian government is reaping what it sowed. It was the government that made all the limitations and regulations that put them in such a position which required them to pay through the nose to lure physicians back to Ontario.

Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 11/30/2007 @ 2:08pm

ironically, it was the leftists that did that, all in order to appease the opposition.

we've been trying to fix it ever since.

nonetheless,

OUR SYSTEM IS GREAT. WE WOULDN'T CHANGE IT FOR A FOR PROFIT SYSTEM IN A GAZILLION YEARS.

if its falling apart, it's because the government (regardless of party) wants to let it die in order to make the superpowerful canadian insurers happy.

I REPEAT. FOLKS, YOU'D BE VERY HAPPY WITH OUR SYSTEM. ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU'VE GOT MORE MONEY THAN WE DO. DON'T BE FOOLED BY NEWS REPORTS THAT GIVE YOU 1% OF THE PICTURE.

if it weren't for this system, my family and most of my friends wouldn't have any health coverage.

paying $600/month to someone who tells you "sorry, you're not covered" is just plain stupid.

please don't make me google the stats, ¡again!

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 2:39pm
How could anything be worse than what we have here in the USA? I work for the state of WV school system, so my insurance isn't bad. At least I'm mostly covered. But every year, the small cost of living increase I get is eaten up by increases in insurance, so my paycheck has stayed the same for about 5 years.

In addition, several years ago my husband had to have his teeth extracted in order to get false teeth. He'd had several places in the back of his mouth where he hadn't had teeth for a long time, so the bones had become disfigured and had to be ground down.

The procedure was to cut open the gums, grind the bone, and then suture the gums. My dental insurance has a cap of (I think) $1,000 per year, so obviously we exceeded this limit. But my regular health insurance would not cover the cost of the surgery because they insisted that the slicing open of flesh, grinding off of bones and suturing is not surgery. I guess your mouth is just not part of the body or something. If someone had a finger that needed bone work that entailed cutting and grinding, I imagine that would be surgery, but not when it's teeth. It's ridiculous.

In any case, I had to pay out of pocket for part of the tooth extraction and non-surgery-surgery and also the new dentures, which were in excess of $1,000.

My story is not unique. In fact, it's not even a horror story like so many. Insurance companies are here to make money, not protect people.

We really, really need single payer health care. Dennis Kucinich is the only one with a genuine proposal that would cover all of us. We now pay, I believe, approximately twice what other countries pay per capita for health care. From what I've read, a large portion of that comes from taxes that go to medical-related corporations for research and development and subsidies. It seems that we could have health insurance for everyone if we just stopped supporting drug companies and other large corporations and used that money for our citizens instead.

Posted by LeeAnnG at 11/30/2007 @ 3:07pm
difference s between canada and the u.s. fully explained. [youtube.com]

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 3:25pm
Our children and grandchildren should be so lucky. This model works pretty well for car insurance.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/30/2007 @ 3:06pm

actually, the four provinces here which have government run car insurance also have the lowest rates.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 3:44pm
How could anything be worse than what we have here in the USA?----Posted by LEEANNG 11/30/2007 @ 3:07pm

Isn't that like one of those lines, from a horror movie, like "It's okay, now. It's dead!"...or "I'm just going out to the car...I'll be right back!"....or "Tommy...did you hear something?"...

just before the machete swings?

Posted by Mask at 11/30/2007 @ 4:24pm
FROSTY ZOOM:

WTF was that... Cute with Chris??? rofl

Posted by jorcheim at 11/30/2007 @ 4:42pm
I would like to know why all the right wingers continue to conflate single payer with socialized medicine. Are you guys really that intellectually dishonest?

Posted by jorcheim at 11/30/2007 @ 4:45pm
Conservatives are extremely intellectually dishonest.

Little kids are expected to invent something so they can pay for medical attention they need. This from "Conservatives" earning under 200,000 a year who think they're in with the upper-crust crowd. You're middle class, you know it, you didn't invent anything, you aren't a self-made millionaire, you're just an Authoritarian who hates hard-working Americans, and you Conservatives know that.

Posted by conshame at 11/30/2007 @ 4:51pm
WTF was that... Cute with Chris??? rofl

Posted by JORCHEIM 11/30/2007 @ 4:42pm

heck if i know,

just found it internetting..................

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 4:52pm
You are a strange man, sir...

:D

Posted by jorcheim at 11/30/2007 @ 4:54pm
Health is the continuation of life, and life is NOT about market laws of supply and demand. If it were so, some people would be left to die. And this is happening now!

Who will pay the bill in a single contractor (USGovt) health care system? The public of course as it has always been. The good thing is the public will get more for their tax money. Somebody said that corporations pay trillions to get their employess health care. Well, corporations make profits ( they should isn't it GM?) they charge that cost to their product, insurance companies whom they contract charge an additional cost to the health provider to bring along the patient (as well as a huge part goes to their pockets) and the health provider, who depends on the insurance companies, lives by their terms and will do anything to keep its operations to a 100% utilization of capital and medical staff. Result: everybody pickpockets the public and great companies like GM go broke because of their health insurance costs. But the real culprit is insurance companies that make GM go broke, the public go broke, the health institutions depend on them.

The only one thing that will stop this scaling costs is the leveraging power of the government as the agent for the people. Even health professionals would be in a better position, probably they would end earning a little bit less per unit service, but they would have much more services to give.

Posted by Frank42 at 11/30/2007 @ 8:52pm
You know John, it's obvious your a Clinton Supporter or just plain off the chain mad.

When will you guys stop playing the media spin violin, and recognize, that Barack Obama is going to be president of the United States, because Americans say so, no the political hacks in the media.

The sooner you accept it the better for you. Barack is the breath of fresh air, America has been athsmatically waiting on!

Obama 08, the world can't wait! No more drama, vote for Obama!

Posted by bluecat at 11/30/2007 @ 8:55pm
You know John, it's obvious your a Clinton Supporter or just plain off the chain mad.

When will you guys stop playing the media spin violin, and recognize, that Barack Obama is going to be president of the United States, because Americans say so, no the political hacks in the media.

The sooner you accept it the better for you. Barack is the breath of fresh air, America has been athsmatically waiting on!

Obama 08, the world can't wait! No more drama, vote for Obama!

Posted by bluecat at 11/30/2007 @ 9:02pm
Posted by FRANK42 11/30/2007 @ 8:52pm

The only one thing that will stop this scaling costs is the leveraging power of the government as the agent for the people. Even health professionals would be in a better position, probably they would end earning a little bit less per unit service, but they would have much more services to give.

That sounds great! And if it's true, why don't we just replace private industry and put the government in charge of everything? Oh, wait a minute...has that been tried already?

Posted by pontificus at 11/30/2007 @ 9:15pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/30/2007 @ 2:39pm

OUR SYSTEM IS GREAT. WE WOULDN'T CHANGE IT FOR A FOR PROFIT SYSTEM IN A GAZILLION YEARS.

if its falling apart, it's because the government (regardless of party) wants to let it die in order to make the superpowerful canadian insurers happy.

Sooo...you're saying your system is GREAT...but then you allow, apparently, that it may be falling apart...and if it is, it's because of those damn greedy capitalists? Now where have we heard that before?

I REPEAT. FOLKS, YOU'D BE VERY HAPPY WITH OUR SYSTEM. ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU'VE GOT MORE MONEY THAN WE DO.

Err...FROSTY? The reason why we have more money than you? It's because we're too smart to institute socialist systems such as the one you're proposing.

if it weren't for this system, my family and most of my friends wouldn't have any health coverage.

Where do you work, McDonalds? I thought you said you were educated? Practically EVERY full time worker in the US is covered under some sort of health plan. Most of the estimated 40 million people in the US who are not covered by a health plan are either illegal or unemployed. Where do you work, exactly, and how would you NOT be covered under a health plan if not for the government?

Posted by pontificus at 11/30/2007 @ 9:38pm
And if it's true, why don't we just replace private industry and put the government in charge of everything? Oh, wait a minute...has that been tried already?

of course, ponti! every democrat has made such a proposition. in fact, they're all registered with the communist party.

you're so frighteningly intelligent, ponti.

Posted by darladoon at 11/30/2007 @ 9:55pm
Practically EVERY full time worker in the US is covered under some sort of health plan

it's no wonder how republicans get elected in this country when you read claims like the above....

Posted by darladoon at 11/30/2007 @ 9:56pm
Posted by DARLADOON 11/30/2007 @ 9:55pm

Well, gee DARLA, FRANK42 is making the, shall we say, counterintuitve claim that we can expect a great increase in the efficiency of the health care system if we put the government in charge. My rejoinder, of course, is that if the government were better at running things, socialism would have worked. Again, we have the laughable logic from the left that since capitalism works so great for America, we should try socialism instead! Funny? Yes! Intelligent? Welllll.....

Posted by pontificus at 11/30/2007 @ 10:06pm
Now Ponti is drifting into Jomammaasch Bootstrap Land.

If you don't have a job you simply don't count.

Posted by drhammer at 11/30/2007 @ 10:06pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 11/30/2007 @ 10:06pm

If you don't have a job you simply don't count.

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that most people who DO work and ARE here legally don't need and would not benefit from a government takeover of health care. That's a simple fact.

Posted by pontificus at 11/30/2007 @ 10:20pm
The number of uninsured people in America is estimated at about 44 million. This includes an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants who presumably would not be covered under socialized medicine. Of the remaining 32 million, about half of whom are hard core unemployed (15 million or more), how many are ostensibly already covered under Medicaid and Medicare? And if their needs are NOT being met, despite the huge costs of these programs, why not?

Posted by pontificus at 11/30/2007 @ 10:39pm
For MASK, who scoffed at my statement of a week or more ago that the Iraq War is fast becoming a non-issue. I expect that outraged posts by Nichols et al. regarding the Iraq War will soon become as scarce as, say, outraged posts about impeachment and the 'secret' agent Valerie Plame:

Democrats: Voters shifting focus from Iraq

By: Martin Kady II and Jim VandeHei Nov 30, 2007 08:38 AM EST Updated: November 30, 2007 12:21 PM EST Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) Murtha says the surge is working, while Hoyer says the public clearly backs the Democratic view of the war. (Composite image by Politico.com) Photo: AP SAVE Digg Shown on del.icio.us del.icio.us See Whos Talking About This on Technorati Technorati I've Reddit reddit

SHARE COMMENT PRINT EMAIL RECOMMEND

Congressional Democrats are reporting a striking change in districts across the country: Voters are shifting their attention away from the Iraq war.

Rep. Jim Cooper, a moderate Democrat from Tennessee, said not a single constituent has asked about the war during his nearly two-week long Thanksgiving recess. Rep. Michael E. Capuano, an anti-war Democrat from Massachusetts, said only three of 64 callers on a town hall teleconference asked about Iraq, a reflection that the war may be losing power as a hot-button issue in his strongly Democratic district.

First-term Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.) -- echoing a view shared by many of her colleagues -- said illegal immigration and economic unease have trumped the Iraq war as the top-ranking concerns of her constituents.

In an interview with Politico, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) attributed the change to a recent reduction of violence and media coverage of the conflict, saying there is scant evidence that more fundamental problems with the Bush administration's policy are improving. Even so, he agreed voters are certainly talking less about the war. "People are not as engaged daily with the reality of Iraq," Hoyer said.

The change in mood perceived by Democratic lawmakers comes as one of Congress' most vocal war critics, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), returned from a trip to Iraq and told reporters Thursday that "the surge is working" to improve security, even though the central government in Baghdad remains "dysfunctional."

Posted by pontificus at 11/30/2007 @ 10:46pm
PLAIN BRUCE:

You said:

Because it's a distinction without a difference.

My response:

Showing your ignorance, again, I see...

Posted by jorcheim at 11/30/2007 @ 11:45pm
PONTIFICUS:

You said:

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that most people who DO work and ARE here legally don't need and would not benefit from a government takeover of health care. That's a simple fact.

My response:

A more specious claim I have never seen on this site. Please explain yourself. You can't just drop a turd like that and expect it to be accepted without some explanation... unless, of course, you are ascribing to the Creationism school of health care... if you believe it, it must be true.

Posted by jorcheim at 11/30/2007 @ 11:54pm
Where do you work, exactly, and how would you NOT be covered under a health plan if not for the government?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/30/2007 @ 9:38pm

i work at 38º53'51.54"N 77º02'11.41"W

where i work, i need government health care.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2007 @ 12:03am
The ignorance lies with the one who believes in putting the power and money in one entity, but does not believe that that entity will try to control and regulate how that money and power is delivered.

Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/01/2007 @ 12:03am

yeah!

blasted insurance oligopoly!

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2007 @ 12:06am
PLAIN BRUCE:

You said:

The ignorance lies with the one who believes in putting the power and money in one entity, but does not believe that that entity will try to control and regulate how that money and power is delivered.

My response:

I never made the claim that the government will not try to control and regulate how that money and power is delivered. In fact, that is precisely what I am counting on. I would much rather have an entity that, even if only nominally, represents the will of the people actually controlling and regulating money and power when it is dealing with something so critical to my health and the health of my fellow citizens, than to have a for-profit entity (whose only goal is to maximize profitability) making those determinations... especially if those are my only two choices. Neither is ideal, but it's so obvious which is better for the vast majority of people.

I find it so laughable that conservatives and free-marketeers equate profit-maximization with economic efficiency... it's just a reminder how flawed their thinking is... either they are ignorant of economic theory in a truly fundamental way, or they are intellectually dishonest to the point where any true discussion of the issues is almost a waste of time.

Posted by jorcheim at 12/01/2007 @ 12:11am
FROSTY ZOOM:

Seriously, man... I can't stop watching that Cute with Chris... he's hilarious.

Posted by jorcheim at 12/01/2007 @ 12:11am
HIT THAT DONUT!

Posted by jorcheim at 12/01/2007 @ 12:12am
You are a strange man, sir...

:D

Posted by JORCHEIM 11/30/2007 @ 4:54pm

naw,

i'm happy.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2007 @ 12:27am
HIT THAT DONUT!

Posted by JORCHEIM 12/01/2007 @ 12:12am

now, that's strange.

i vote for BATTY!

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2007 @ 12:27am
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/01/2007 @ 12:16am

the biggest burden on the u.s. and canadian health care systems.................

fat.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2007 @ 12:28am
And the biggest source of fat?

Refined corn syrup.

Posted by jorcheim at 12/01/2007 @ 12:36am
plain bruce,

maybe because grocery stores (and getting people fed more generally) work pretty good right now where most people buy their own food and the government picks up some of the slack for poor people, and our health system doesn't seem to do much well except pharma research and high end surgeries.

supporters of single payer don't have to think it would be perfect or even great, just better than the alternatives. And if you want to look at how well it can work look at France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, etc. Canada's system (which I think clearly works better than ours) is among the worst of the nationalized systems. Comparing us to Canada is cherry picking, and cherry picking that doesn't even work that well.

Posted by dentedpat at 12/01/2007 @ 12:37am
Refined corn syrup.

Posted by JORCHEIM 12/01/2007 @ 12:36am

or cow refined corn.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2007 @ 12:44am
Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/01/2007 @ 12:37am

i vote for norway.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2007 @ 12:45am
plain bruce

Tell me which of these three things you disagree with.

(1) The way to judge a health care system is by quality of output (average scores on health indicators for the people the system is supposed to serve) and size of input (money value per capita or as % of GDP of the resources that go into the system).

(2) Western European countries like the one's I mentioned are healthier on average than the United States

(3) Western European countries like the one's I mentioned spend less money on health care than the United States.

If you accept all three then if follows, as far as I can tell, that their systems are better than ours. So which one is it? Given that the arguments you make against their systems don't mention how healthy people under single payer systems are or how much those systems cost overall. But the first one seems like the one that is the most obviously true, so I don't know what you will say.

As for the arguments in your first response, I have to confess I don't know enough about the specific issues you bring up to make an intelligent response. Links to news stories (not in the Washington Times, or the Post for that matter) would help me out here. A detail that would matter is whether it was mainly the rich (such as they are in Sweden) who abandoned the system. The rich abandon good schools all the time in this country in favor of private schools (I teach at Cornell and run into kids from the same area - usually from Long Island - who don't know each other because one was in the public school system and the other in a private school system. Because of the property values the public schools are great, but are abandoned by the very rich anyway. I think it is status concerns that moyivate it but i really dont know for sure). I can imagine all sorts of explanations for the phenemenon you talk about, some bad for my position and some not. So more information is necessary. (The outsourcing in Sweden is actually no surprise. As long as tests like that are covered by the government, I see no reason for the government to employ the people who administer them, or own all the machines. It is not uncommon here to have MRI's be done outside of a hospital, and I don't see why that would be different in Sweden. As far as I can see it doesnt imply anything about the quality of public medicine.)

As for the food thing. I hadn't realized it was so bad, but after 28 years of conservative economic policies I shouldn't be surprised. But this isn't yet a case for the government to pay for all food. For one thing agriculture and food distribution are, unlike health care, areas in which governments have sometimes fared very badly. The Soviety Union screwed up food production, as have a good number of countries in Southern Africa from what I understand. I don't know of similar horror stories for health care. But more importantly, it sounds to me like what is happening with food is that the poor aren't having enough slack picked up for them. Until recentlyt he minimum wage had been dismal, and while I don't have the figures for you (and so I might be wrong) I can't imagine that funding for food assistance when up very much relative to inflation from 1994 to 2006 given who controlled the source of budget bills. So it sounds to me like 250 million Americans are doing fine, but we are underserving the poverty stricken and those close to the poverty line. So a system that is mostly private but with public funding for those with need so that everyone gets covered still seems like a fine system for food.

That is remarkably like what Edwards and Clinton have proposed for health care by the way. Why don't I support only their plans and not the more ambitious single payer system? That would be that unlike with food, even people who aren't poor get crappy health care here. For instance my wife and I eat fine, we even have room in our budget to buy healthy food and not the low priced crap that is forced on poor people. But my wife, who was a teaching and research assitant at UNC-Charlotte had to wait until she got a part time job at Starbucks to get decent health insurance. She got some through UNC (a shady company called Pearce and Pearce, never use them because they won't pay a dime, but will be fine accepting your money), but it was terrible. I teach at a rich kids school so their endowment allows them to get Aetna. My wife's health problems over the last two years have led to encounters with for profit health care which put all the 'horror' stories about Canada (that I have heard and have reason to beleive) to shame. Waiting months for a test, having that test not be paid for by insurance. Then the test didn't find anything so it was off to a new test that we had to wait months for and which we had to pay for with credit. Lovely situation. And then three months of waiting in pain (because the pain medication wasn't covered by Pearce and Pearce either) until the good insurance kicked in so that she could have diagnostic surgery. And it didn't matter to us a whole lot if our doctors liked their compensation package. The only people I know who like their health care are either in a union, work for a non-profit entity, or work at Starbucks. Now this is all anecdotal so you can disregard it, but it fits with the data I have seen. People pay alot of money to organizations they rate as unresponsive and unhelpful and have to cut corners with their health whenever their insurance decides not to cover something. I apologize for being longwinded but you asked why liberals don't support the government paying for all food and I wanted to give my reasons why. Even though I wouldn't call myself a liberal. I am either a populist or a lapsed socialist, I cannot decide which.

Posted by dentedpat at 12/01/2007 @ 03:55am
Ah, I missed this post earlier but came across the Krugman article and was hoping it would be picked up on this site.

There is just no rational defense of Obama's health plan, or of the contortions he's putting himself through to pretend it's the best one on the table. He could scale it back and say he's taking a modest and less costly approach; incremental rather than sweeping reform. Fine, then we could compare outcomes. Or, he could accept the opinion of the experts on the topic and add a mandate to his plan to achieve universality. But the doublespeak makes no sense to me, and he's quickly becoming the most autocratic, self-righteous voice in this year's Democratic chorus. I don't know about you but I've had enough with the current round of the "decider" President who can't admit when he's wrong.

We have not just a moral issue here but an imbalanced market issue, and there is no way you can normalize the market and control costs without the mandate. It isn't just Krugman/Clinton/Edwards against Obama on this one; it was also the studied opinion of the Health Care Task Force which (quite ironically) Obama helped create. And its the opinion of "Urban Institute researchers, the RAND Corporation, and MIT economist Jonathan Grube" according to Jonathan Cohn (quoted with reference link here [facts.hillaryhub.com]).

OTOH if Obama had the nerve to outright -oppose- universal health care, rather than triangulating with a broken plan, then we could at least know what will happen if he gets elected. But he's once again doing the very thing he accused Clinton of: taking a wishy-washy position apparently for political reasons, and worse yet one that won't even solve the problem. I see a lot of audacity but not a lot of hope.

Posted by ccorbell at 12/01/2007 @ 09:01am
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/01/2007 @ 12:49am

dude, we all pay taxes.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2007 @ 09:30am
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/01/2007 @ 12:49am

before you call me some kind of

neo-freeloader,

check your facts,

mr. posh.

personally, i used under $100 in medical services in past fiscal year,

and my family total was under $500.

lion's share of what,

mr. posh?

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2007 @ 09:42am
More than 30,000 people a year DIE in the U.S. for lack of health insurance or affordable healthcare. Whatever the flaws may be in a UHC plan, people will not be dying because they couldn't get treatment. If you will read Sen. Edwards' plan, it is comprehensive and addresses the issues of people who simply cannot afford premiums. His plan, BTW, was out long before Clinton's, and she copied his major initiatives. However, I believe Edwards' plan is better.

To those who oppose mandated coverage, this seems to me no different than requiring auto insurance. And, what so many people who have coverage simply do not understand is that they pay the price in the form of ever-increasing costs of healthcare. A healthy society and healthy workforce can be nothing but positive. There are far too many ramifications of millions of people who go without preventive care for me to get into here. But, believe me, it costs ALL of us in ways that extend beyond monetary.

Posted by amc654 at 12/01/2007 @ 10:28am
Posted by AMC654 12/01/2007 @ 10:28am

More than 30,000 people a year DIE in the U.S. for lack of health insurance or affordable healthcare.

Where on Earth did you get that number? Did you make it up?

Whatever the flaws may be in a UHC plan, people will not be dying because they couldn't get treatment.

People die all the time in socialized health care systems due to rationing. This fantasy of you folks that when the government takes over, all health care will be free and bountiful is leading you to the wrong conclusions. The resources for health care will always be limited.

The statists are selling you a bill of goods on this one, the same bill of goods they've been selling when it comes to government control for over 100 years.

If you will read Sen. Edwards' plan, it is comprehensive and addresses the issues of people who simply cannot afford premiums. His plan, BTW, was out long before Clinton's, and she copied his major initiatives. However, I believe Edwards' plan is better.

All plans look great on paper. If you believe that this guy who has absolutely zero knowledge of the health care system has come up with all the answers as part of his Presidential campaign promises, you probably still believe in the tooth fairy as well.

To those who oppose mandated coverage, this seems to me no different than requiring auto insurance.

It's a lot different, actually. The argument for mandatory auto insurance is based primarily on the fact that you don't want someone running into you who can't afford to pay for the damage caused by his or her negligence.

Health care is completely different, so different in fact, that it argues precisely AGAINST governemnt control. That is, if you don't mind the government telling you what you can eat, drink, or smoke, or what 'risky' activities that you may engaged in. After all, if my taxes are being used to pay for someone who is smoking or eating themselves to death, skydiving, mountain climbing or other risky activities don't I have the right to stop them?

Posted by pontificus at 12/01/2007 @ 11:19am
Pontificator

"It's a lot different, actually." Not so much. Its called sharing the risk and its what bring auto insurance costs down.

As to the number of deaths - well, perhaps AMC's number is a bit overstated, but not by much. In 2005 the number quoted was 18,000 - still too many for the "Leader of the Free World", yes?

See USA Today

And let us not forget the recent dicovery in Calif where an internal memo surfaced from an HMO giving bonuse to employees for refusing and cancelling coverages. Health care for profit can not, in the long term, work

Posted by leftofcenter at 12/01/2007 @ 12:04pm
When I first started reading dailykos all these kossacks were like, this obama guy is awesome. Then I saw him speak at the DNC in 2004. Within minutes, I wondered, is this it? Other than good looks this guy is just basically Booker T. Washington (when we really need WEB Dubois). I am sick and tired of politicians gaining support just based on their looks and that's all Obama really is. Face it.

Posted by neaguy at 12/01/2007 @ 3:47pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 12/01/2007 @ 12:04pm

As to the number of deaths - well, perhaps AMC's number is a bit overstated, but not by much. In 2005 the number quoted was 18,000 - still too many for the "Leader of the Free World", yes?

That depends. Under socialized health care, how many do you think will die waiting for procedures that are rationed, as they currently are in places like the U.K., where people frequently die waiting for procedures? How many will die due to the unavailability of certain types of treatments under socialized health care, e.g., the treatments that rich Canadians now come to the US for?

And let us not forget the recent dicovery in Calif where an internal memo surfaced from an HMO giving bonuse to employees for refusing and cancelling coverages.

What, you mean no one will refused coverage or procedures under socialized medicine? All of the sudden, under government-run care, resources will be unlimited, that's what you truly believe? Get real!

Health care for profit can not, in the long term, work

Health care for profit currently works better than any other system in the world. US healthcare is the best in the world. it is socialized medicine that cannot, and will not work in the long term, and the sooner you lefties figure that out, the better off we all will be.

Posted by pontificus at 12/01/2007 @ 6:59pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/02/2007 @ 01:44am

On page 2 of its 2005 Annual Report, the Fraser Institute features a photograph of Michael Walker with US Vice President Dick Cheney at the Eisenhower Administration Building, followed by a photograph of Canada's "future Prime Minister" Stephen Harper attending the Institute's annual general meeting.

This suggests that the institute is indeed engaged in political activity, and certainly many of its Senior Fellows are.

The Fraser Institute's list of Senior Fellows includes Tom Flanagan, originally of Ottawa (Illinois), who is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary. Tom Flanagan was campaign manager to Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he headed Canada's newly formed Conservative Party in federal elections in 2004, and then again in 2005, when the Conservatives won a minority in government.

BBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 01:53am
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/02/2007 @ 08:21am

The fact is, BRUCE, you have nailed the major issue here. Statism is a religion at the Nation. According to this religion, there isn't a thing in the world that can't be improved by a government takeover, it's just a question of which is next on the agenda.

Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 09:33am
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/02/2007 @ 02:05am

well aware of the frasers.

you know,

neo-liberal claptrap be damned.

i'd rather have a 23% more inefficient system than see my less fortunate brothers and sisters left suffering.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 10:39am
well aware of the frasers.

you know,

neo-liberal claptrap be damned.

i'd rather have a 23% more inefficient system than see my less fortunate brothers and sisters left suffering.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 10:40am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 09:33am

boink! boink! boink! boink! boink!

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 10:42am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 10:42am

boink! boink! boink! boink! boink!

Eloquently spoken, as usual FZ. Well, at least it beats your bald statement of opinions as factual statements.

I think BRUCE makes an excellent point, here. If a government takeover of the health care system is presumed to a) make resources unlimited, such that no-one will ever be denied coverage or a treatment they need and b) it will increase efficiency by eliminating duplication caused by competitive systems and c) will be more humane by the elimination of the profit motive then d) why would this not work for EVERY system in a capitalist economy, most specifically, food distribution? The question is, if all those presumptions that you folks are claiming are true, what, in principle, should prevent a government takeover of ANY AND ALL functions of the private sector? My answer is none. The fact is, however, your presumptions are false, and you refuse to recognize that.

Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 11:10am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 10:42am

boink! boink! boink! boink! boink!

Eloquently spoken, as usual FZ. Well, at least it beats your bald statement of opinions as factual statements.

I think BRUCE makes an excellent point, here. If a government takeover of the health care system is presumed to a) make resources unlimited, such that no-one will ever be denied coverage or a treatment they need and b) it will increase efficiency by eliminating duplication caused by competitive systems and c) will be more humane by the elimination of the profit motive then d) why would this not work for EVERY system in a capitalist economy, most specifically, food distribution? The question is, if all those presumptions that you folks are claiming are true, what, in principle, should prevent a government takeover of ANY AND ALL functions of the private sector? My answer is none. The fact is, however, your presumptions are false, and you refuse to recognize that.

Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 11:10am
My other question to you, FZ, is this: if the US decides to adopt socialized medicine, where are all you Canadians going to go when you REALLY need treatment?

Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 11:13am
Ah, yes, what a wonderful health care system the Canadians have. Unless you're REALLY sick, that is. Then, if you're fortunate enough to be able to afford it (like some of the wealthier Canadian politicians who have worked to deny Canadians a private health care system), you go to the US for treatment.

STRONACH'S HEALTH-CARE CHOICE TheStar.com | Canada | Stronach travels to U.S. for cancer treatment Stronach travels to U.S. for cancer treatment ASHLEY HUTCHESON/TORONTO STAR Belinda Stronach, with members of the African Children's Choir, arrives Sunday at the One X One gala at the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts. One X One Foundation benefits domestic and global children's charities. Email Story Email story Print Print Text Size Text Size Text Size Choose text size Report Typo Report typo or correction iCopyright License this article AddThis

Voices: Stronach's U.S. treatment Sep 14, 2007 04:30 AM Susan Delacourt Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–Belinda Stronach, the MP for Newmarket-Aurora and former cabinet minister, travelled outside Canada's health-care system to California for some of her breast cancer treatment earlier this year.

Stronach, diagnosed in the spring with a type of breast cancer that required a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, went to California in June at her Toronto doctor's suggestion, a spokesperson confirmed.

"Belinda had one of her later-stage operations in California, after referral from her personal physicians in Toronto. Prior to this, Belinda had surgery and treatment in Toronto, and continues to receive follow-up treatment there," said Greg MacEachern, Stronach's assistant and spokesperson.

Speed was not the issue, MacEachern said – it was more to do with the type of surgery she and her doctor agreed was best for her, and where it was best performed. The type of cancer Stronach had is called DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ, one of the more treatable forms.

Stronach, who has announced she is leaving politics to return to executive duties at her father's Magna empire, paid for the procedure.

"As we said back in June when we confirmed the surgery, this is a personal and private matter between Belinda, her family and her physicians. I think you'll understand that because of respect for Belinda's privacy, we refrained from offering specific details around her medical treatment," MacEachern said.

It is unusual for a federal politician to travel outside Canada for private medical treatment, especially given the hallowed status of the Canadian, publicly financed health-care system in the realm of political debate.

MacEachern stressed that Stronach's decision had nothing to do with her confidence – or lack of it – in Canada's cancer-treatment facilities or public health care.

Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 11:17am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 11:13am

hey, read this about uninsured americans coming to canada for health care.

A lot of the time, though, they're a result of out-of-country patients who either aren't insured, or skip out and can't be found. Sometimes the insurance company in their home country challenges the bill, or tries to negotiate, and health officials here decide it's not worth the time and expense. [tinyurl.com]

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 11:21am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 11:17am

belinda stronach is an a**hole.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 11:22am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 11:10am

hey there, mr efficiency.

please explain this:

United States of America

Total expenditure on health as percentage of gross domestic product 15.4 (2004)

General government expenditure on health as percentage of total expenditure on health 44.7 (2004)

Private expenditure on health as percentage of total expenditure on health 55.3 (2004)

General government expenditure on health as percentage of total government expenditure 18.9 (2004)

External resources for health as percentage of total expenditure on health 0.0 (2004)

Social security expenditure on health as percentage of general government expenditure on health 28.0 (2004)

Out-of-pocket expenditure as percentage of private expenditure on health 23.80 (2004)

Private prepaid plans as percentage of private expenditure on health 66.4 (2004)

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) 6096.2 (2004)

Per capita total expenditure on health at international dollar rate 6096.2 (2004)

Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) 2724.7 (2004)

Per capita government expenditure on health at international dollar rate 2724.7 (2004)

OR

Canada

Total expenditure on health as percentage of gross domestic product 9.8 (2004)

General government expenditure on health as percentage of total expenditure on health 69.8 (2004)

Private expenditure on health as percentage of total expenditure on health 30.2 (2004)

General government expenditure on health as percentage of total government expenditure 17.1 (2004)

External resources for health as percentage of total expenditure on health 0.0 (2004)

Social security expenditure on health as percentage of general government expenditure on health 2.1 (2004)

Out-of-pocket expenditure as percentage of private expenditure on health 49.40 (2004)

Private prepaid plans as percentage of private expenditure on health 42.3 (2004)

Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) 3037.6 (2004)

Per capita total expenditure on health at international dollar rate 3173.0 (2004)

Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) 2120.9 (2004)

Per capita government expenditure on health at international dollar rate 2215.4 (2004)

shall i pull up norway?

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 11:39am
hey ponti, compare these two:

CUBA

Total population: 11,269,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): not available

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/79

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2002): 67/70

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 7

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 128/83

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2004): 229

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2004): 6.3

OR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Total population: 298,213,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 41,950

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2002): 67/71

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 137/81

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2004): 6,096

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2004): 15.4

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 11:44am
you know,

i can't see why you blindly defend a system that makes a few people rich and leaves many people defenceless.

i see problems in the canadian system. obviously.

but it's worked well for a while and i hope my son's generation will be able to benefit from it as well.

if not for the iraq money................................

could have.

could have.

could have.

could have.

could have.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 11:49am
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/02/2007 @ 3:28pm

please squint at above statistics.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 5:16pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/02/2007 @ 5:35pm

it's pretty hard to "discrepancy away" a TWENTY-SIX FOLD difference in health care costs between cuba and the u.s., all for the same "standard of health" (yes, per capita, blah blah)

but that's TWENTY-SIX FOLD

hey did you see the u.s. spends a bigger % of gdp AND governmental allotments for health care than our poor little system that's being bled dry?

and you've got at least 23,457,219 people with minimal access.

you call it being faster, cheaper and more efficient.

i call it being caring.

that's what doctor's do.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 7:55pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 7:55pm

dagnammit,

"doctors"

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 7:55pm
Plain Bruce, Regarding your response to my post, it seems that in response to the following two requests: 1. Which of three proposition which jointly imply that our health care system is worse than Western European health care systems would you deny? 2. Provide links that document the cases you mention, because otherwise I cannot talk about them intelligently.

you resonded that I read a book published by the American Enterprise Institute, reports from the Fraser Institute, and a poll by a British magazine that I couldn't find (in fairness that is probably due to my own limitations as an online researcher, but then again I wasn't skeptical of the NHS poll to start with). Now while this counts as a genuine attempt to respond to me, I hope you understand that I don't take myself to have been given much evidence. Think tanks like AEI aren't trustworthy sources. Before you get too upset at my biased approach I should tell you that I don't think any think-tank is a trustworthy source. Sometimes they get things correct of course, but that X comes from a think tank is not any reason to treat it as a reliable source of information. This is because, unlike peer reviewed journals and academia there are no mechanisms built into think tanks to prevent dishonesty. Given who supports some of these think tanks you might think that the only self-censorship mechanisms in place are the one's that prevent the donors from being pissed off. Now my experience with AEI is almost all through talks they sponsor which make it on one of the C-SPANs, and my experience is that AEI fellows make things up. I haven't heard any AEI fellow talk about health care. But whenever there is an AEI talk on foreign policy or trade I try to watch. And they lie. That doesn't prove that the person who wrote the book you mention is a liar, but it makes me suspicious enough that I will continue reading books for my dissertation and skip the book you mention. So while I believe you answered in good faith, I am afraid we have reached a stopping point in our little debate. I don't trust your sources, and I wouldn't be surprised if you don't trust mine.

The only thing I can really respond to in your last post is your claim that I conflate health and health care. I don't. All that is necessary to say in order to suppor the claim that you judge health care systems by their effect on overall health is to say that the point of health care systems is to improve overall health. I was including in the reference of 'health care system' more than just insurance and hospitals, but also programs that deal with prevention, research, outreach etc. And while I have to admit no health care system is the sole determinant of the health of a nation (a nuclear meltdown is not a mistake by the health care system but would have some affect on health) I think it is the dominant one, and typically a good health care system will produce good health outcomes. As for dietary concerns, I have lived in Germany, Great Britian and the United States and while there are less obese people overseas it is not the case that the supermarkets contain no crappy food meant for poor people. They do have fewer poor people per capita though, and I can see how the bad diets thereby avoided could pump up the numbers for places like that. So I think you have provided great reason to couple a single payers health care system with more robust unemployment insurance, public housing programs, etc. Thanks for making that argument for me.

And the answer is yes, I think my wife would certainly not have had to wait as long in a state like Germany. My grandparents have lived in germany since the 1970s and have nothing but glowing things to say. When told about how my wife's expereince went they were disgusted. And just so you don't think they are flaming liberals, my grandfather's first presidential vote was for Wendell Wilkie, and his opinions haven't changed a whole lot since then.

I will consider our debate at an end for reasons mentioned earlier, and so won't be looking to this thread again. If you feel like I didn't give you a chance to properly present your position, then feel free to consider yourself to have won the debate.

Posted by dentedpat at 12/02/2007 @ 9:33pm
That, however, is not enough of a reason to destroy a health care system that has given us (Americans, that is) the world's best care.

Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 12/02/2007 @ 11:20pm

so why are kids becoming diabetic?

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2007 @ 12:03am
Frosty

What is it, Fraser or Frasier? Are there two different institutes?

Wasn't one responsible for a buttload of controversial electro-shock treatments?

Posted by drhammer at 12/03/2007 @ 09:17am