Don’t give up freedom for Socialism in November

Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 19, 2008 at 11:42 am

Thanks jVA,

And as some more personal experience;  my first (now -ex) wife was from the Philippines.  Before she immigrated she was a licensed public health nurse managing a clinc as head nurse in the Manila surburbs.

She told me a lot about the range of services her clinic performed as government-funded public health care.  Yes, there were private hospitals that those people wealthy enough to afford them could use.  Yes, there were a lot of problems with their public health care system.  But from my then-wife’s descriptions, the Philippines as a developing nation suffering under a corrupt dictator (Regean’s BFF Marcos) was offering fully funded public health-care services back in the 1980’s that we in this country are not getting today.

Pretty sorry, if you ask me.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 18, 2008 at 9:45 am

Concerning National Healthcare;

I already posted this on another thread, but it’s pertinent here.

Here are some choice quotes from this excellent article, with the link to full text below:

“Every other modern (and some 3rd world) country in the world has universal, usually single payor, healthcare. Most of those systems produce as good or better results than the US on almost all metrics.“

“The reason the US does not have universal healthcare, ironically, is the huge amount of money that could be saved—5.3% of the US’s total GDP. That’s a heck of a lot of money, and a lot of people are getting very rich off of it. And those who make a killing use the money to buy lobbyists and politicians and make sure that 50 million Americans don’t have insurance, another 20 million or so are underinsured, that 50% of all bankruptcies are caused by health expenses, and that US healthcare metrics continue to lag other first world countries. “

http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/17/not-reinventing-the-wheel-when-it-comes-to-fixing-america/

MikeG, you miss the point of a single-payer healthcare program.  The purpose should be to cover preventive and routine health care needs for all citizens.  The exotic needs - such as the infamous hip replacements, reconstructive surgery, extreme cancer treatments, etc, can and should be handled on a deductable-type paid care.  Having also lived in Europe for three years, I know that supplemental health insurance is available even with a national healthcare system.

Under our present pay-as-you-go system, care is already being rationed.  It’s being rationed to those who can afford to pay.  For everyone else, tough luck. 

Bottom line - residents of what is called the most advanced, most wealthy, most democratic nation in the history of the world, should not be dying because they can’t pay a doctor.  Right now, they are.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( MikeG ) on June 18, 2008 at 6:43 am

“The GOP did a fantastic job of sinking Hillary’s plan with scary advertising and handing the Clintons a big political defeat.  Millions of uninsured Americans can thank them.  So can the insurance industry.
    I’m not sure what you mean by “health care can work”.  But either way, I don’t care if it’s Hillary or Mitt Romney or the ghost of Richard Nixon that comes up with the plan.  Health care at least on some limited scale should be a solvable problem in our country.“

JVA, just to add my two cent’s worth:  Having lived in Europe and its environs for over 10 years, and having experienced both the good and the bad about socialized medicine, I have to conclude that the bad most often outweighs the good.  Sure, for basic health care (nothing catastrophic or complex), the system can provide for the masses.  But get really sick, and all bets are off.  Transplants?  Stand in line; a LONG line!  Surgery?  How does one prioritize who gets to live and who gets to die?  Somehow the Europeans (and Brits) have this down to a science.  Got cancer?  The most effective treatments are most often withheld as too costly.  Special cases like birth defects and burn damage?  Good luck on getting reconstructive surgery!  Why do you think that those with money, when they don’t have to pay for their own health coverage (other than exorbitant taxes), come to the U.S. for treatment?  And that includes our neighbors to the North, by the way, who also have socialized medicine.

The GOP had a healthy, and I think correct distrust of the Clinton health care plan.  But the GOP wasn’t what sunk it; the medical industry and the insurance industry can take that credit. 

I’m not against some form of universal health care; I have kids with their own families trying to make it without health insurance, and I see what is happening to so many of our youth and others who can’t afford insurance.  But as do many of even my fellow “conservatives,“ I do not believe it will function efficiently or effectively in the hands of the federal government, whether Dems or Repubs.  I also don’t believe it should be free.  Rather, federal legislation putting the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of each STATE should be passed, with each state responsible for coming up with a plan for their own citizens based on their own needs and abilities, and taxing folks where necessary and applying for federal funds when their plans qualify for such support.  The Romney system has been held up as a good model; let every state emulate that model, with federal support, but without federal meddling beyond providing the mandate. 

But let’s not fool ourselves.  Socialized medicine is socialized medicine.  Our system is somewhat broken, but in spite of that our system has produced some of the most highly respected and skilled doctors and care centers in the world.  Prospective doctors from all over the globe come HERE to learn and to practice.  That, too, should tell you something.  What is really needed is getting the insurance industry under control, as well as the legal profession and the ability to sue someone for anything and everything.  Medical malpractice insurance has been instrumental in driving both the cost of medical care up, but also many excellent doctors away from the profession. 

MikeG

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( barnun ) on June 17, 2008 at 3:53 pm

jva, I think it is a solveable problem. It has been proven to work right here in the US. I’ve agreed with that. Hillary’s plan grew into a monster, typical federal program. We (congress), just has to make sure that we dont start a program that we cannot afford. Look how deep in debt social security is right now. That has to be fixed somehow. a couple trillion would cure it. If you want our federal government to take over the healthcare insurance industry, you’ll massively increase the size of our current government. but as Obama says, he’ll create a lot of jobs. They’ll all be federal employee’s.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( barnun ) on June 17, 2008 at 1:15 pm

jva, the post office is a self sustained enterprise. It is one of the very few federal government business that actually works and works within it’s own budget. Fire depts are local, not federal.
France has issues with their young generation being raised under the impression that they are “entitled”. Even Hillary Clinton has said this is an issue with our own youth here in the US. I like American Ketchup on my fries. I like Heinz, you know, that major multi million dollar corporation that pays Kerry.
Health care can work. Look at Romney. The Hillary Care style of health care plan would be a disaster. With the support of her Husband the president, Her own party wouldn’t touch it.

Report Inappropriate Comment