I think this is newsworthy:

MILWAUKEE (AP) - Barack Obama said Friday that the country must do "whatever it takes" to eradicate gun violence following a campus shooting in his home state, but he believes in an individual's right to bear arms.

The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.

"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.

I think it's BS. But if that side has to win, I'll take him over Hillary.

I've dealt directly with Obama on the issue of guns. It was back when he was in the state legislature. Even at that time he said he believed there was an individual right to own guns (unlike Hillary). However, he believes it can be subject to extensive restriction--including bans on classes of guns. In fact it was never clear what restriction he believed would go too far and be unconstitutional.

DH

And Ted Kennedy is his main backer? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm..........

I can't believe McCain being from the state of Arizona and being anti-gun. I thought he fought in Viet Nam to protect American's rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I wonder what liberals would say if a conservative claimed to believe in abortion rights but that abortion could be restricted in the same way? Let's put the same restrictions on abortion and the first amendment like the second amendment. After all, "no right is absolute, and all are subject to reasonable restrictions". Would the liberals accept this person as pro-abortion or pro-first amendment? NOT! They would go absolutely NUTS!

Obama is a board memeber of the Joyce Foundation, a rabid anti-gun organization.

What is "common sense" and "reasonable" is a fluid term. The real question is reasonable to whom? Guns have been around longer than this nation has been in existence. So, why are we constantly seeing these senseless violent public attacks only within the last few years? Back in the 70's and 80's the media stopped publishing or mentioning the names of streakers at major sporting and public events because all they wanted was to get attention and have their names in the news. Now when someone pops a cork and goes on a rampage, their life gets analyzed in the media for a month. The kid in Nebraska who shot up that mall said more than he realized in his suicide note when he said "Now I'll be famous..."

The problem is our rotten culture, which is dominated by the liberal media and the liberal so-called entertainment industry. The violence in this nation corolates with the violence in our media and long term exposure to it.

It speaks volumes about the Republican party that the best they can do is come up with the retread McCain.

I can't stand Democrats, and I can't stand Orama Barama, but it's hard to argue that McCain will beat him out if it comes to that. Barama has about 2000 times more vitality and I think America is a country that rewards vitality.

It coming and its coming in November regardless of who wins this election the gun owners will be in their sights.

I sat in on a committe meeting about a gun ban bill in the Illionois legislature and Obama was on that committee. After listening to the questions he asked the NRA lawyer, it was obvious he was anti-gun. There is no doubt about it, he would take your guns given the chance.

Well, he has a "volunteer office" down in Houston, TX that's decorated with a Cuban flag . . . which bears an image of Che Guevara. When told about it, Obama did not suggest that his people should take down the flag. Wonder if that means he supports the individual right to keep and bear arms in the same way Fidel and Che have??

As for McCain on the Republican ticket, I look at it this way: if McCain were no worse than the Dem nominee on every other issue on the table (and I think he's better on several), I would vote for him anyhow because of his stance on the war on terror. Conservatives have chosen to throw away their votes before--like on Perot in 92, because GHW Bush committed the sin of going back on his word about not raising taxes. Just what did that get us? 8 years of Clinton, and severe cuts in the military and the intelligence community that have made it much more difficult to fight the war on terror.

I guess that makes me a national security conservative more than a fiscal or social conservative. But McCain gets my vote. He wasn't afraid to criticize Rumsfeld's strategy, and he got on board with the surge--which has worked--from the start. I vote to support the troops, and that gives McCain my vote.

Obama, the sponsor of the UN's Global Poverty Act 2007, which will cost us billions and has enough small print about small arms ownership to make one wonder?
Don't bet your guns on the Dems and the soon to follow World Court lads!

I got one question..

Is Barack Obama a Muslin ?

We are standing on the edge of being a third world turnip!

You hear all kinds of rumors about the guy...

I'd like to know the truth about him.

Is it true that Barack Obama won't say the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America ?

What you need to know j0e - there are forces at play that want to level America's status as the only super-power.
To be put on par with the other nations of the world, no more no less important - that is the goal of the left...and Obama is about as left as you get.

What?! Yeah, he's "Muslin" and he won't say the "Pledge of Allegiance."

Give me a break. It's easy to understand why you're homeless.

OWD

One thing you need to understand about liberals is they are excellent at word trickery. They don't speak the same language as we do. Of course they support the second amendment. They have made it clear that only the police and military should have guns. And have stated many times that that is what the second amendment protects. So when they tell you they are with you they are lying to you but believe themselves. Lets hope the supreme court case about to be decided on this spring will take some wind out of their sails.

Osama is a empty Muslin suit - bwahahhaaa

Yea right... If he supports the individual's right to bear arms, why isn't his signature (or Hillary's)on the amicus brief filed on behalf of the second amendment in the DC gun case?
55 senators and 250 congressmen have signed on, but they are no where to be found...
Check out Cam & Co. on http://www.nranews.com for more info...

The muslim/flag stuff is just juvenile and stupid. Obama has also stated plainly in the debates that he believes in the 2nd amendment. I believe he is considered and steady, and a breath of fresh air this country sorely needs. Judging by the stadium overlow crowds he's gathering, many agree.

Nobody yet has been able to state one thing that Obama or Hillary have accomplished. Nor many directly attributed to John McCain. Mc-Cain-Feingold is one but not a very popular one. Being a POW doesn't automatically make one a hero, either, just makes him a former POW. Ditto for being a veteran. Remember John Kerry?
Somehow, as soon as a veteran becomes a politician he becomes a "war hero", whether he actually did anything heroic or not. Lots of differing opinions on various websites as to McCain's record of "heroic" deeds.
However, I'll take him over HC or BO, any day.

Gun legislation is in the future regardless of who takes office. As for the vehement comments about the candidates...all I want are people who will stop looting the Treasury and Constitution and giving it to their friends. I work hard for that money and I want it spent reasonably wisely so all will benefit, the rights we all know about.

You know,I am way too intelligent and genuinely concerned about the future of my Country to be limited to voting as directed by the NRA based on just one issue...gun control. However, if we don't continue to bloc vote this issue, we're really going to be legislated out of our right to bear arms...Geo

Give me break...I heard the rightwing liberal was raised a Muslum or Muslin...and I also heard he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance to our Great flag.

We have some great choices....a women or a Muslin for President.

I think the Democratic party has lost their damn minds.

OK. OK. Not liking someone is one thing, but making derogatory remarks about them is something else! I actually feel sorry for Hillary. Like a lot of other women in Washington, I think she's just beginning to realize that she didn't have to sleep with her husband to get someplace.............Denny Crane

If Hillary Clinton was married to Barack Obama we wouldn't have to look at her ugly mugg.

No one is sure she ever actually slept with her husband as Chelsey doen't really look like either of them!!

It doesn't matter whether Obama,Clinton or McCain win the election We as gun owners will lose.
Jim

Candidates say what their handlers tell them to say to get elected. They split words, spin phrases and make you think you hear what you want to hear. Few will ever come right out and tell you what they think for fear of loosing millions of voters. That assumes that they are not in fact an empty suit with no real thoughts about anything other than getting elected.

What scars me is that they all have this underling belief that all of our rights are granted by the government and we should be happy for that fact. The government only protects our rights not grants them. We empower the government not the government empowers us. That is a major difference. We should expect the government to do their job without the need for ever ending thanks for doing it.

Politicians are arrogant in most cases and feel that the laws they write do not really apply to them. They are our leaders and we little peons should bow humbly when they pass. The non elected ones are worse than the one who stand for election. Who would have been advising Al Gore after 9/11 had he won? Barbara Streisand, Opra, Rossie, Moveon.com, ect... Bush may not have made all the right choices after 9/11 but at least he did not just wring his hands and issue arrest warrants. It is these appointed and non appointed advisers that I worry about.

I have been hearing every election for the past 40 years is a election that will change our world for the worse. Most have been very little if any real change. This one will pass as the others have. Changes will happen but to a far lesser extent that most fear or want. Thank heavens for the fact that the government is a 8000 pound gorilla and getting it to move at all is a major feat. That inertia keeps us from any major change in any direction. Pity that 8000 pounds take so much to feed it from our income but at least it is solid as a rock and almost as smart.

Jim....American gun owners are tired of loosing.

Mark, the Muslim stuff is as false as the rumors about Bill Clinton having been recruited by the CIA when he was a student at Oxford. The flag thing . . . that one's true. I agree it's also juvenile and stupid on the part of the people who put it up in an Obama "volunteer" office, and also stupid of Obama not to tell them to take it down. If there were a McCain office with a swastika (or a Confederate flag, to mention something that has history where McCain is concerned), I would expect McCain to ask his supporters to take them down. And if either of those symbols appeared at a McCain office, I'm guessing the MSM would be all over it. Wonder why they've pretty much ignored the Che flag?

In 2006, when the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act (which would prevent governments from confiscating legally owned firearms in times of emergency, such as New Orleans did after Hurricane Katrina) came up for a vote in the Senate, Obama voted for it. Clinton, as always in lock-step with anything anti-gun, voted against.

Obama could hardly be called a friend to law-abiding gun owners, but he is better than Hillary Clinton in that regard. Since he doesn't take special-interest money, at least he won't owe Sarah Brady, George Soros et al like Clinton would.

Because he was severly wounded, the N. Vietnamese offered to send McCain home. He refused to go unless his comrades were also released. As a result, he was held in Hanoi for 4 more years. That's genuine heroism, and all of the Americans held with him consider him a hero.

Comparing John McCain to Kerry-the-medal-hunter is absurd and offensive.

Jim,

It was not McCain's status as a former-POW that makes him a "war hero", but rather his actions while a POW - specifically his refusal to accept parole from the enemy and his support of fellow POWs while a prisoner.

While I would agree one's actions in a Vietnamese prison camp do not have a great bearing on one's qualifications for President, they at least give one insight into the character of a person when the chips are down.

Ken

There are no good candidates.

I've read all the stories. The VC were going to send him home, not because he was wounded but because his father was an Admiral and they thought it would be good PR. The story is that he refused to go home unless every POW who was there as long or longer than he was, was also released.
Democrats believe John Kerry is a war hero, too. Bob Dole was severely wounded and may or may not have done anything heroic. But Bob dole didn't portray himself as a "I'm a war hero, and I've got the medals to prove it", however. I'm seriously concerned that McCain will be just another over-the-hill career politician, awarded the nomination for longevity as Dole was. I'm also concerned he will lose badly, as Dole did.
He WILL, however, get my vote.

I agree completely - McCain may be the lessor of two evils, and I am damn tired of having only wingnuts to choose from. The Dems had one good candidate, and so did the Pubs, both got little response in the Primaries.

"Hero" has become so pervasive it's cheapened, applied to men and women who serve in the military and those who serve with distinction, to people who save animals and people from trees and ledges, and talk people off the rails of bridges. Hero fits McCain easily.

Ideological purity for both parties will be a casualty this time around. 70% of the public wants change (and in my opinion rightfully so), and McCain is by definition the anti-change candidate. That's just the way it is, and nothing we say here is going to change that simple fact.

Ditto:
Please remember that McCain was one of the driving forces behind closing the non existent "gun show loophole". After I patiently explained to him that there is no loophole and everyone at a show selling a gun has to adhere to the laws of the State he got irritated and hung up on me.
Jim

McCain is anti-change? He's broken ranks with his president and his party on any number of issues, for better or for worse. Obama, like Hillary and McCain, is a member of the senate. That would be part of the Washington establishment, and in fact part of a Dem majority in Congress for over a year now. So in spite of Obama's beating the "change" drum, how does he--as a representative of the party in control of Congress--represent change any more than does McCain, a representative of the minority party who has frequently opposed his own party (and president)? And of course McCain ran as the anti-establishment candidate in 2000.

I guess some people are more willing to buy that "change" label than I am. Obama reminds me a bit of Homer Stokes, the "reform" candidate for governor in the movie "O Brother Where Art Thou?" We're never quite sure what his platform is, but by God, he's for reform!

Maloney, you are a trouble-maker. (Smile. I don't know how to post icons.)

Like a moth to a flame. I should let these foolish threads -- and in more than one instance, galactically ignorant rants -- alone, but they fascinate at the same time they repel.
It has always amazed me how quickly the "right" wing demonizes and disparages not just their opposition (i.e., Hillary, Kerry, Dems, Libs, etc.) but also their own when somehow they don't sufficiently pander to some special interest or party line. Imagine that, having a mind of your own, as John McCain has on occasion exhibited. Was McCain a war hero? How about John Kerry? Max Clelland? The soldier who blew the whistle on Abu Ghraib? Disagree with McCain, or, on a larger scale with Kerry, for public stances on issues, but understand one thing: they served honorably. Any disparagement of this fact renders all your loud pronunciations of patriotism and "support for our troops" meaningless. You parrot patriotism without honoring it.
Let's make one thing clear. Terrorists, whether Al Qaida or Islamic radicals of another persuasion, do not pose an existential threat to this society, this nation. They have no army of any consequence that can stand against ours. They are capable of random acts of violence and occasional catastrophes such as 9/11, but they cannot bring down our government or nation. We will do that ourselves -- out of fear and base motives. Divide and conquer. Put in place laws to surveille everyone and everything; relinquish the moral and ethical high ground; adopt torture as a means to an end; use lies and propaganda to advance agendas; add the arrogance of power to ignore and break laws already in place; demonize those who don't share your views or values or point out those things you don't want to hear (those damn Liberals and Liberal Media!) Seven and a half years of Bush and Conservative agendas have given us: 9/11; two failed wars (not militarily. Politically and strategically); a 2 trillion dollar debt; the worst international reputation in every recent poll; Katrina; a 2 trillion dollar debt; Enron; Jack Abramoff; a 2 trillion dollar debt; a backward standard of living for a vast number of Americans; a dis-functional gov't. divided along ideological lines; a 2 trillion dollar debt; a tanking economy; long term environmental problems and a looming environmental catastrophe; a 2 trillion dollar debt ...
But here's the good news: you guys still have your guns -- and a V.P. that REALLY knows how to shoot one. The bad news is that within a short space of time you won't have anything to shoot at. I don't suppose we should place any of the blame for that on the enlightened environmental policies of the environmentally conscious Republican administration and Congress. Don't forget the immortal words of Sen. J Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma: "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public." I'd amend that to "the Bush administration", but, hey I'm partisan as hell.
Oh well. When game disappears, you can use your guns on all your perceived enemies of the Republic. Lowell can use his squirrel gun, Homeless Joe his 10 ga.. Jim Legg will make his presence felt as will Tanky and others, and Larry can provide intel and carry the "flag".
I trust y"all will take this in the spirit intended. "Careful where you point that gun, son."
Regards,
Will

Obama is a board member of the Joyce Foundation, which is whole-heartedly anti-gun and funds anti-gun activities.

And the left is different how? We stand to lose no matter who wins.

True.

And he's still preferable to Clinton, IMO.

A good squirrel rifle is worth it's weight in gold; if and when your big SUV gets you there, it just might turn out to be a lead free zone! Could be even a little public wilderness area with the names of wildflowers along the pathways.

Well, aside from Will's discussion above, Obama looks to be the favorite at the present. If some of the above observations are correct (and I am too lazy to Google them), then Obama may be somewhat supportive of the right to own guns. And, he sure as heck will be into individual rights.
I suggest we all send him money and tell him we are doing it because we know he supports the free citizens right to own guns.
Economic persuasion, of someone who is not intractably against you, is really what drives politics and resulting policies.
So pony up boys.
Jake

Will, since time began, the Dems have had a reputation for "eating their young". Unfortunately, a bunch of rightwing blabbermouths (aka talk show hosts) are trying to convince the Republicans that's a good idea. I'm suspicious that some of them may be counting on better ratings for their shows if a Dem wins in Nov. Personally, although McCain was not my candidate of choice to start with, I'm doing my best to keep the cowboys on the ranch.

But I have to point out more than a bit of hyperbole in your post. I don't blame FDR for Pearl Harbor, even though we had far better reason to be prepared for that attack than we did for 9/11. Blaming Bush for 9/11 falls into the same category. Iraq . . . you can certainly blame him for that. But Clinton was president for nearly 2 1/2 years after AQ attacked our embassies in Africa, and what did he do about them? Had his counterterrorism point man, Richard Clarke, tell the Bush Administration "this is a threat you really need to worry about". Maybe he was more worried about Monica. And Katrina . . . now you're blaming Bush for the weather? Let's see, Iowa had the worst floods in its history in 1993. Clinton came, tossed a sandbag, bagged a photo op. Analysis: Dems cause floods, Republicans cause hurricanes. But Al Gore . . . he invented global warming.

I don't think anyone has blamed the current Administration for the weather. But the way "You're doin' a great job Brownie" and FEMA and the whole federal system dealt with that disaster was more than shameful. Much more.

Yeah, wow, big difference...
They are both rotten to the core. How does one choose from among such deprivation and decay?

...and what about the 17th st. levee jakearoo, was that the "much more"?

Larry --
One thing I appreciate about your posts is that you can disagree without being disagreeable. Here is something that isn't hyperbole: the PDM that stated "Bin Laden determined to strike the U.S." I suppose, though, I should be mollified since Condaleeza Rice determined that this was an "historical" document.

Try to stay on point Lowell. I said the way the Administration DEALT with the disaster. Regards, Jake

Just responding to your "Much More" jake. Thought maybe you knew something we didn't?

Thanks, Will. I made a New Years resolution to try my best not to be disagreeable. Need to go to confession (or I would if I were Catholic), because here it is mid-February and I've already transgressed a few times!

I think you mean PDB, as in President's Daily Brief. However, if you read that particular PDB, you will find that there are no specifics as to when, where, or how AQ is planning to strike. Back when I was a brigade intelligence officer, the Old Man might have made some use of such non-specific information by putting the troops on alert, but he would've also kicked me in the ass and told me to come back with more specific information. What they call "priority intelligence requirements" in the military do indeed include whether the enemy will attack . . . but they also include when, where, and in what strength. And that PDB was dated August 6. To put the entire nation on red alert for over a month, based on a non-specific threat--especially prior to 9/11--would have been pretty unusual. And given the nature of the attack, I doubt such an alert would have succeeded in stopping it.

And those who point to that particular PDB always seem to overlook another one. See the 9/11 Commission Report, pp 128-129: "SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks". Even more specific, wouldn't you say, than the Aug 01 PDB item? And the date on this one: Dec 4, 1998. The text refers specifically to an attempt to bargain for the release of "the blind sheikh" who planned the first WTC attack in 1993, but it also talks specifically about AQ and aircraft hijack training. Based on that very specific warning, Will, you might want to look at the measures put into place by the Clinton Administration, in their final two years in office, to prevent aircraft hijacking. I think you'll find they did . . . pretty much nothing.

Bill didn't have time for things like that.

He was busy lubing up his Havanas....I bet he can't wait to get back in the Oval office.

Wonder who the next Monaca will be ?

Your forays into the vulgar always smack of experience or envy when one lifts the veil of feigned disgust.

We're all in this together, Larry. If this is a "war" on terrorism, by definition it's a never-ending one and, on the evidence, waged by native sons and daughters as much from extremists from overseas.

Extreme acts remain an abiding part of our existence. Societies will decide how much they want to give up in money and civil liberties for greater protection---but there will be no end to terrorism. I don't blame any government.

Too bad there's not a black woman in the mix. All the candidates have an instrumentalist view of electioneering--you can't get to be where you think you might want to be to accomplish what you think you might want to accomplish without being all things to all men or not much of anything to a large number of them. This is very much about the swipe and very little about making change. At least Mike Huckabee could do a reasonably solid impression of "Mr. Smith". I would vote for both him and Ron Paul out of gratitude for entertainment value received.

jack

Traditionally, Democrats stand for and support the following (in no particular order):

1. More Taxes
2. More Gun Control
3. Weak Military
4. Soft on Crime
5. Gay Marriage Rights
6. Abortion Rights
7. Welfare/Food Stamps (And More of Them)
8. Illegal Alien Amnesty
9. Soft on Terrorism
10 Bigger Government

In addition to turning tail and running from the War on Terror, who ever wins intends to force feed us National Health Care. National Health Care sounds like a good idea, but they fail to discuss how and who will pay for it (Most likely, you and me). As in Number 7 & 8, we will be paying for THEIR health care, since they pay for nothing else and sponge off of us already.

Although I respect Senator McCain, and he will get my vote, I can't help but think he will be more of the same. However, I could never vote for those who support the numbered items above, regardless of how "charismatic a speaker" they are. I have read that he supports amnesty for illegals, but I think that is inevitable anyway regardless of who wins. JMHO.

I may be missing it, but I think that over the past couple of months, the results of the primaries have indicated that the majority of those casting ballots want a move to the center. Many among the general public are sick and tired of both the far left and the far right. In reality, even though my personal polital leanings are just to the right of Atilla, there are fragments that are a bit further left. I feel that those poiticians that are centrist actually reflect the majority of the folks out there.

Being as BO has the most liberal voting record in the senate, I cannot possibly consider voting for him. That and he just does not have the experience in dealing with with a polarized legislative branch. The hard core politicians will chew him up, as will foreign leaders, particularly our enemies.

That said, and I hate to defend him, I will defend the truth. The crap going around on the internet about him is just that, crap. He does say the pledge and he was never a muslim. The relationship with the pastor at his church is another thing. His pastor seems to look favorably upon Louis Farakahn, a very polarizing figure to say the least.

There is NO WAY I will vote for Billary ...... I just cannot bring myself to beleve a word she says. Not after all the crap that happened during that administration. He may have the political savvy, but is not one I can imagine as the Commander-in-Chief of this great country.

McCain, while I may not have agreed with some of the legistation he has co-sponsored in the past, I feel is the best of the rest and is, despite our feelings, the one that has been selected to represent the Republican party by those that voted in the primaries.

Right now, in my humble opinion, the safety of our nation and our nation's interests are what is paramount. It has to be. While some may think that the ecomomy is more so, I have to say that there is little that a President can do about the ecomomy, and oft times doing nothing is better than interfering at all.

While with National Defense and long lasting foreign policy is the nearly exclusive domain of the Executive branch. Our military might and the continuance of that might by R&D, Training and continuing positive support is too important. A guy like Obama, who thinks he can talk to our enemies will not have the respect for the military that a CnC needs to have.

While McCain may not be the perfect Right Wing Candidate, nor may he not ignite the fundamentalist Christians as do others, he is still the Best of the Rest and deserves the GOP's support in order to prevent the perversion of the presidency as witnessed by the Clinton years.

What is trurely Sad is that the vote is in the hands of those that can't find China on a map..... some cannot even find their own state on a map if the US. That, my friends, it VERY sad.

Larry --
There is enough blame to spread around if you look hard enough. But the hard fact remains that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and the PDBs, I'm given to understand, are not idle e-mails but contain some of the most important information a President has to deal with each day. There were any number of warnings, and even if you can't bring yourself to accept Richard Clarke's rendition of things, it's hard to overlook such vacuous comments as Rice's, "No one ever dreamed someone would use an airplane ..."
Am I trying lay 9/11 entirely on Bush's shoulders? No. But I don't think you can give him a pass, either.

My comments on the comments above by Will S are that this country always needs solid kick in the ass before acting becomes becomes acceptable to the general public and has proved so historically. Look at the Lusitania, The USS Maine,Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Unfortunately, monumental loss of life has acompanied those historical events If GWB were to have made preemptive strikes he would have been crucified by the opposition as a war monger and one that was afraid to "negotiate" with our adversaries. I am sure you all know what I mean. There is no easy answer, when it is your ass in the Oval office. I can not imagine the pressure or how easy we all think it is to "pull the trigger" on any decision. This ain't like shooting pheasants or skeet....... There is tremendous pressure by advisors and adversaries alike. The pressure must be very, very difficult to bear. I also feel that they are receiving more information than we can ever imagine, such information that is still classified and some that has no place (in my opinion) in the public domain. We as a nation bear responsibility no matter how minute an idividual's part may be.

My humble 2 cents

There is some speculation,albiet in the very preliminary stages, that if McCain gets the Republican nomination he may select C. Rice as his running mate. This IMO would have a negligible effect with black voters since she is considered to be an "Oreo" and in the same category as Clarence Thomas. However; I think sho could potentially have a tremendous effect in influencing the womens vote.
Jim

Just so you can rub my nose in it come November: Clinton and Obama beat hell out of each other, race trumps at convention, the notion of Clintons back in the White House propels McCain to the presidency.

A good observation and also a good bet. There are more than a few Dem. men who will give McCain a serious look and choose him over the other two.

Can't help laughing at this!

Right now, under the management of private health insurance companies, we Americans have higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, fewer people covered, and pay twice as much per capita for health care as any other major industrial nation. For this, we're ranked 37th in the world by the World Health Organization.

Oh, yeah, we Americans have to pay twice as much money for US-made pharmaceuticals as everyone else, too. Administrative costs for America's multiplicity of private health plans eat up 1 out of 4 health care dollars - 3 times as much as Medicare or the VA. Ironically, the national health plans proposed by Hillary and Obama will perpetuate the HMO stranglehold on America's health care!

Although the Spaniards and French and Germans and Brits and Italians enjoy better health care outcomes today at half the cost, we Americans have been suckered into believing that national health care doesn't work. P.T.Barnum sure had us pegged!

Health care . . . we should probably ask some of our Canadian and British posters to comment on their experiences with their respective national health care systems.

Will, obviously 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, so he doesn't get a "pass". However, we do have to remember how long he'd been in office, and what happened during the previous administration. Which means we can't give Clinton a pass for not taking action in response to the PDB that told him--2 YEARS before Bush took office--that AQ was planning to hijack aircraft. Think what might not have happened on 9/11 if cockpits had been hardened by then. AQ might not have even attempted the attack in the manner they did. Or think what might not have happened on 9/11 had Clinton ordered the CIA to go after Bin Laden, aggressively--to include assassination--after the African embassy attacks. Again, over 2 years before Bush took office. Then there's also the fact that the CIA's training program for operations officers--the guys that collect intelligence and engage in counterterrorism operations abroad--had been cut to its lowest level EVER under Clinton. That's something Bush could not correct in 8 months in office, since it takes a few years to produce a fully-trained, language qualified ops officer. There were also significant cuts in the military under Clinton.

Comparing Bush to FDR, the latter had already taken significant steps to build up our military prior to Pearl Harbor. But he'd also been in office for 9 years by the time we were attacked. Still happened on his watch--and he didn't have a bunch of damage to his military and intelligence assets to undo, as Bush did. In summary, while I don't blame either FDR or Bush, given the different circumstances, there are far more places to spread the "blame" in Bush's case than there are in FDR's.

Well then Jack, how about you stop laughing long enough to educate us all on how it will work, and who is going to pay for it????

GunPlumber, national health care has worked for half a century in Europe, paid for by the taxpayer - and what they pay in health care taxes is about half what we pay in insurance premiums. This is thoroughly documented.

Health care is accessible for everyone, without charge or with minimal charge, throughout the EU and Japan and many other countries. No one asks for your insurance card, or sends you a whopping bill. No one puts off treatment because they can't afford it. And the quality of health care is excellent.

I'm not going on hearsay, GunPlumber; I am an EU citizen as well as an American. I have experienced emergency health care in Scotland, England and France. My wife had elective surgery in Scotland. In central London I was able to walk unscheduled into a hospital emergency room and be examined by an MD and X-rayed within 45 minutes. There was no charge for the treatment. In Paris I was treated within 20 minutes. In both places I was given prescription drugs that cost less than $20. Good luck having that prompt treatment in an American ER (unless you're having a heart attack).

In Scotland, I could always see my doctor within a week - in Minnesota I have to wait anywhere from 3 to 5 weeks for an appointment. My wife has had to wait as long as 3 months to see her gynecologist. Meanwhile, we have American citizens getting sicker, or sometimes even dying, because their insurance company won't approve needed treatment. Isn't there something weird about a health care system where the insurers who pay for medical treatment make more money if they deny your claim?

We don't need to invent national health care - there are many successful working models already out there that are delivering better health outcomes than ours does, and at half the cost. Unfortunately, our politicians in both parties get so much cash from the health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies, they're afraid to do anything for America's health without protecting the profits of those industries.

Health care in Çanada is a long way from being as efficient as citizens expect from a public system paid by taxpayers but definitely preferable to the American where some 40-million are without coverage. Everyone is covered and it is considerably less expensive than the US system.

I had a serious illness 40 years ago that would have ruined me financially under the US system. Imagine the relief of not getting a bill. A friend's child required years of treatment in hospitals---no bill. A hunting buddy had open-heart surgery---no bill. No one complains of paying into a health system they don't use.

To reduce wait times, private clinics paid for from public funds are proliferating. If service is not available in Quebec province, patients are treated at public expense in the United States. I think the Canadian system will evolve along these lines over time, drawing from the European experience.

It's difficult for me to get a handle on the Democratic aspirants' plans but from the sound bites Obama's seems abominable and Clinton closer to a universal system. I don't understand why they don't come out and say, look, the public pays one way or another, private or public, so we're taking the best of the best systems in the world and going with it to cover every man, woman and child.

Health care isn't something that can be covered adequately here. I can tell you---and I'm trying not to be partisan---that Canadians consider their system as the distinguishing difference between Canada and the United States. It's not baseball and hockey, different systems of governance, your omnipotence and our very modest role in world affairs, it's universal care as a sacred trust---and a right.

In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man





Gary Hubbell
February 9, 2008


Print Email

There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.

Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.

The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.

He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.





BACK TOP OF PAGE



Privacy Policy | Advertise | Contact Us | Archives | Classifieds | Subscribe | Site Map | RSS Feeds

Visit our other news and portal sites.
All contents © Copyright 2008 aspentimes.com
Aspen Times - 310 East Main Street - Aspen, CO 81611

King and Jack et.al., The problem with changing American healthcare is that there is a DEEPLY entrenched system which makes LOTS of money for various participants. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospital and other health care groups, etc. make BIG money from health care. On a much smaller scale, doctors do reasonably well. Some quite well. Though, many rank and file docs doing ordinary work like internists, general practitioners, ordinary OBGYNs, dermatologists and etc. are almost swallowed up by the insurance companies. They work long and hard for their moderate share of the health care pie.
Anyway, all those big money folks pour HUGE money into political campaigns and do it on a long term basis. They pay off all the players from both parties. It is almost impossible to get those who legislate to seriously threaten the existing system. And it does not matter the political party.
The system has to change and become more inclusive. But it will be a variation of the same old song.
But, you all knew that, right?
Jake

Jack and King Brown:

Thanks for that explanation. Like I said in my original post, it sounds like a good idea. My fear though, is that the Democratic side will take a different path to it. That is my skeptism, neither will explain how it will happen.

Good points on the real life experiences. My wife is British, and she can't figure our system here either. I guess I take it for granted based on being retired military.

I'll keep an open mind, but will still vote Republican. The Dems just stand for too many things that I am against.

In November 2008, we'll start to cure the world of all it's ills. We'll clothe the poor with the shirts off our back.
...then be handed the bill - and wait for the next heart attack.
Who's angry?

The fanatics on this board have started the misinformation and innuendo already. I'm still waiting for the real fight to get dirtier!

Barak Obama in the January 15 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas
“We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.”
Hillary Clinton in the same debate:
“I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this, and backed off a national licensing registration plan.”

Obama and Clinton both get an F rating from the NRA, while McCain gets a C+, despite pandering to the conservative gun lobby. Poor old dinosaur Huckabee, effectively out of the race , gets an A. Says a lot about the NRA and the 4 million members who allow them put out that type of garbage!

Right.

Cost of health care . . . if we add the taxes we pay to the insurance premiums we pay, I wonder how that compares to the taxes Europeans pay, to cover--among other things--their health care? It's hard for me to compare, personally, because I've always had good insurance coverage--either because of my job or my wife's. She still has excellent coverage, and now I'm retired military. And I can't remember the last time I've paid a medical (or dental) bill. Both the wife and I just had biopsies (both negative, thank God) and didn't have any problems either with our family physician or the specialists involved.

Kerryman, nearly all the Democrats tend to talk a good game on guns, and they're very careful to pander to hunters. Here in Iowa, our Senator Harkin talks about not taking away guns from hunters and target shooters, but he's also on record as saying that all "Saturday night specials" (cheap handguns--but where do you draw the line?) and assault rifles ought to be put on an old rust bucket and sunk in the Atlantic. How about that--gun control and ocean pollution, in one fell swoop??

Larry - total per capita costs (including insurance and/or taxes) were included in the World Health Organization's 2000 study ranking national health care systems. The US ranked number 1 in per capita cost among the nations of the world, and number 1 in health care expenditures as a percent of GDP. Yet we ranked a dismal 37th in overall health system performance - better than Slovenia, but not quite as good as Costa Rica.

Here's an eye-opening report from the University of Maine: http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

My thoughts:
Clinton or Obama....Never

McCain? I can't seem to give him a pass over these issues. I thought he spent enough time sleeping with the enemy.

* McCain-Finegold, Freedom of speech
* McCain-Lieberman, Global warming
* McCain-Kennedy, Amnesty for illegals
* Gang of 14, Fillibuster ruling
* Two votes opposing Bush tax cuts
* NRA, C+
* Reported violent temper

I'm very concerned regarding this election. I'll vote, but will take my pencil and write in a vote for DUNCAN HUNTER.

While I totally agree with your thoughts on Duncan Hunter and I also respect your right to pencil in the candidate of your choice, I must ask that you re-consider.

You very specifically said that you would never vote for either Clinton or Obama...... I will submit that while you support Duncan Hunter, a vote for him will be a defacto vote for the democratic nominee.

Sometimes our palatte is best served by swallowing some distaste in preferance to being force fed a real pile of feces.

While our health care system leaves quite a bit to be desired, I have also heard some horror stories about other countries systems as well. I do know this, as was previously mentioned, our free market health system is very entrenched. Not only that, but our we are an economy that is based upon a capitalist system where supply and demand is paramount.

Now, some will and can argue that there is no place in the medical business where a free market and capitalism should prevail over and above the care of a person in need. I will say that NO person in this country has ever been denied health care based on the ability to pay.

Too many people are earning a good living in the medical businss. From housekeepers, nurses, supply companies, food companies, etc. It aint just the doctors. How would they all be affected by a nationalized health care system.

How much would taxes go up? And, what next? Nationalised food costs? How about government automobile?

Not to mention, the President has very, very little that he/she can do to get this program through. They can suggest, lobby, and pray and preach, but the legislative branch is still the one that has to write and pass the law. President ain't king.... No matter what Bill thought.

Thanks Steve. I would hope votes are not wasted. As for some folks desire to emulate a socialistic government in the area of health care, I hope they remember that our forfathers left those same lands and established a Republic for a reason. We may have our falts but I always remember that our border guards are there to keep people out not keep us in. I wonder if the new immigrants know something that we may have forgot.
Ron

I think if a bunch of us put our heads together in a hunting camp anywhere we'd come up with solutions for imediments to the next day's hunting. Human nature, a reluctance to accept ideas from other places, is part of the problem of rich nations not finding better ways of doing things.

France, with extraordinary social infrastructure and equality, the best healthcare in Europe but serious problems of inclusion, struggles to find a way to pay for all the social amenities without ruining them along the way. Canada, prosperous with full employment and trade surpluses, struggles in the same way with child poverty.

How can wealthy Canada justify the inequality? Within the last 30 years, the United Kingdom has done a remarkable job of reducing child poverty with tax credits and social programs. The US, sleepwalking into economic darkness, has the same problems of building social mobility in a rich but unequal society.

If a bunch of liberal and conservative hunters, Protestants, Catholics and Muslims, can find practical solutions to their common problems of high winds and high waters, safe transportation etc, you'd think our leaders could find inspiration and common ground to make healthier and happier societies, eh?

I've not got the time to get too involved in this, dislike making sweeping statements but have to say that it is a futile exercise to try to compare transborder healthcare costs. Using percentage of GDP figures as a basis is not worthwhile, the figures are skewed by too many other factors. For example a huge infant mortality rate in Alabama has to be seen in the social context of the population, rather than the state government.
Jack M - you mentioned the WHO - sure, integrate insurance costs and taxes, but the REAL figures are buried in the indirect supports. R & D grants subsidize a lot, sweet deals on medication do the same. The pricing structures of medication from country to country are impossible to analize e.g. Ibuprofen is about $10 for a small pack here, whereas it could buy me a container of 250 in the US. If the drugs are generic it is even cheaper.

In Ireland we supposedly have a free / State healthcare system but everyone above the poverty line has the equivalent of Blue Cross / Shield to pay for better service & treatment. Right now, we have people sleeping on trollies (bogies in US lingo?) because we do not have sufficient hospital beds. We are recruiting nurses from the Philippines because we cannot get enough of our own to work for the salaries on offer. We have a MRSA crisis in our hospitals. Do not get ill if you visit here.

I pay a social welfare contribution (taxes) of about 15% of my income up to a ceiling, above which the rate of contribution drops. In France, the rate actually increases above a certain level of income. Employers pay a significantly higher contribution, especially in France, which explains the high rate of unemployment there.
I receive no dental benefits and basically no medical benefits because my income is above the threshold, yet in France I could get everything paid for by the State - from reading glasses to contact lens solution and even there they have the "complementaire" to provide top-up cover.
In Scandinavian countries the contributions by both employer/employee are much higher yet the population there continues to bitch about the high costs and the poor service.

What I can say is that the costs were highest in France when I lived there, I continued to pay them to France when I moved to the US (where I was classified as a French expat!) and they are lower in Ireland.
In many European countries the contributions also include an element for social welfare payments, for sick pay, early retirement, etc. The academics would have to guess at the breakdown of the figures and then base their comparisons on that - a bit like classifying a Cape Gun as a 20 bore because that is the average of the 3 barrells!

Larry B - all politicians talk the talk, they pander to anyone that will give them a vote, that is what got them there. On gun control I have no major issues with a limitation on number / type of weaponry e.g. assault rifles. Maybe that's because we had a civil war here less than 100 years ago and from 1970-to a couple of years ago more or less the same thing "up North."
Km

King, I think it's very unfortunate that many of our so-called leaders and wannabe leaders are in more for the power thay can obtain for themselves than for the good of the electorate. -- Ed

The WHO data are all we have to go by, and if not precise, they're close enough. The fact that the US pays more and gets less in health care than any OECD or EU country is undeniable.

Steve L., don't waste your breath on capitalism, free markets and competition, when the FDA protects Big Pharma profits by preventing Americans from buying Rx drugs at open world market prices! American citizens pay much more for the same Rx drugs that the rest of the world enjoys because of government intervention paid for by corporate lobbyists. The FDA has actually confiscated needed prescription drugs from senior citizens who bought those drugs in Canada (at much lower prices than the identical drugs sold in your local pharmacy).

Yes, you can find horror stories in any health care system, ours included (i.e., the girl who died after Cigna denied $$ for a liver transplant despite the unanimous pleas of her medical team). But ours is the only major country where people are confronted with ruinous medical bills, or are afraid to change jobs for fear of losing medical coverage. As long as insurers can profit more by denying coverage, our health care suffers.

Socialized medicine is like our socialized public schools or our socialized police protection - maybe not perfect, but a helluva lot better than nothing. And like schools and police protection, socialized medicine still allows those who can afford it to upgrade through private sources.

I would be willing to bet that nearly all people who support the current health care system in the U.S. fall into one of two catagories. 1. They are either employed or have ownership in some part of the health care system or have a close family member so involved. Or, 2. They are nicely insured by some employer or other source. (There may be a third catagory of flat out rich folks who are happy to be able to "buy" the "best health care there is" though they probably have very expensive insurance policies.)
The 40 million or more Americans with no health care and those saddled with the typical HMO which tells them what doctors they can see and when probably don't have the same perspective.
One interesting thing is that those who tout the present system love to complain about the "cost" to the "system" from those without insurance when those folks can't avoid seeking health care. However, the "cost" imposed by those folks on the system is not honestly recorded.
For example, two years ago I had two heart stints implanted. An afternoon proceedure in the heart cath lab and stayed overnight in the hospital. The amount "billed" for the procedure was $87,000. That is the amount which would be billed to an indigent or someone without insurance. The total "allowed" or agreed to by the doctors and hospital to be paid primarily by insurance was $11,000. The $87,000 figure is pure BS.
No one who has any kind of insurance or plan pays even a quarter of the charges imposed on those without insurance. But, the health care providers charge that highest amount to those who can least afford to pay and then write that amount off when they calculate their taxes. The providers also add up all those totally unrealistic charges when they claim in the public and press how much it costs them ("and all of us")to provide unavoidable services to the indigent.
And of course, in a system with universal health care, there are none of those nasty uninsured folks to inflate the "cost" of unpaid health care.
One other thing which has been mentioned here but I have not seen directly addressed. The defenders of the present U.S. system are always eager to share horror stories of health care deficiencies in other countries. You know, the 6 month wait for knee surgery and all. But, those stories are always anecdotal and not in any way a scientific appraisal of a system. And, if you compare even the anecdotal stories with the HMO stories easily enough found in this country, you get the same thing, maybe worse.
But again, out system is well entrenched and pays out way more than its share of mordida to the politicians. Don't expect any dramatic changes.
Jake

Jack, there's a whole lot of local control over our "socialized" schools--unless maybe they've done away with school boards up there in the People's Republic of Minnesota. Ditto the cops. The ones we encounter in Iowa--unless you're an illegal and happen to run afoul of ICE, or find one of the rare FBI's in our state--aren't feds. They work for the municipality, the county, or the state, and are thus far more accountable at a local level. We elect school boards, city councilmen, mayors, county sheriffs, etc. So to compare "socialized" schools and cops to government health care would only work if each city, county, and state had elected officials in charge of health care at those respective levels. I don't think any of the plans being suggested by any of the candidates work that way. Or at least I haven't heard that there's going to be something like a city or county medical board that would be the equivalent of a school board, or a county medical officer that would be in charge of health care the way the county sheriff is in charge of law enforcement.

RMC, while I respect your concerns about McCain, we need to remember what happened the last time conservatives got upset at a Republican candidate--as in GHW Bush, when he went back on his "no new taxes" pledge. The protest vote went to Ross Perot, which gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton. There are only two people that have a legitimate chance of winning the election, and they'll have either an R or a D behind their names. If enough R's sit it out or write in a candidate, that may be enough to get the D elected. Especially in the middle of the war on terror, I'm not at all thrilled about 4 or 8 years with either Hillary or Obama at the helm.

Larry - Quibbling about which level of government provides a basic, essential service misses the point: government already provides basic, essential services - and most of us expect those services as a right. In a developed nation, basic health care should be as much a right as basic education or basic security.

The comparison of socialized medicine to socialized schools and police is direct in most other developed countries. But even in the US it's not as far off as you suggest. Our "local independent" schools are bound up in state and federal financing, standards and unfunded mandates such as 'No Child Left Behind.' Ask any school board member.

And sometimes government can do a better job than the private sector. Administration by private insurance companies absorbs 19 to 24 per cent of the health care dollar; Medicare administration costs run closer to 2 per cent. But then, the faceless bureaucrats aren't pocketing seven-figure salaries.

Being an entrepreneur, I view the lack of universal health care as a disincentive for people considering making that leap, due to the high cost of self-employed health insurance. Why should our health depend on how much money we make? If it works for Europeans, why shouldn't it work for us? As for paying for it, the trillion we've blown in Iraq would have easily paid for it. It's a matter of priorities.

As for McCain, if his wanting to stay in Iraq indefinitely and bomb Iran is your idea of good judgment and a good use of our lives and treasure, then his views on the 2nd amendment will be the least of our worries.

Jack, which level of govt provides essential services is scarcely quibbling. It's the basic difference between Republicans and Democrats! Whether schools and the police are controlled by the federal government in other countries isn't the point. We're talking about the good old US of A, where they're not. Comparatively speaking, there's relatively little federal funding provided to K-12 schools. Most of the money is either from the local district (here in Iowa, a combination of property taxes and local option sales tax) or a state funding formula. That's very different from putting the feds in control. And as I said, I have not seen anyone's health care plan that includes levels of local control similar to what we see with our schools and police. If I did, I'd be much more willing to consider supporting such a plan. I have a voice in what happens at our local school, because I get to vote in school board elections. (I can even run for the school board.) Likewise, I get to vote for the county sheriff, which gives me a voice in local law enforcement. If I lived in a town instead of in the country, I could vote for the mayor and city council, who oversee the local police. Where do I find the equivalent of those options in any national health care plan?

Marklart, a lot of people believe that setting a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq is not a good idea. Did Clinton set a date certain for withdrawal from the former Yugoslavia? If he had, and if we'd pulled out, I wonder if Kosovo could have declared independence, as it just did--with American troops still there? And bombing Iran, if it turns out they are indeed developing nuclear weapons, is an option I would not want to take off the table. Of course Israel might take care of that one for us anyhow.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion Larry, as am I. If you think staying in Iraq and bombing Iran is a good idea, that's your perogative. However, about 60-70% of Americans disagree with you. Good luck with that in November.

Which has the most costly, most cumbersome and lowest-performing health care system in the developed world.

The national health care plans proposed by Hillary and Obama keep control of the system, not in the hands of government, but rather in the hands of rapacious for-profit insurance companies and HMOs. Gee, does that mean they're closet Republicans?

Marklart, not having a public universal system cuts an even higher swath as a disincentive when companies and manufacturers choose locations for expansion. Productivity is calculated higher in those countries where health benefits are paid from federal taxes i.e. the auto industry in Canada. The US is paying a high price in a world where competitiveness and productivity rules.

Larry, as a military career man, you know that the every attempted occupation of non-Western countries since the Second World War has ended in failure. Even now, in Afghanistan, the West is not talking about victory---it says there is no military solution---and it's not talking about imposing democracy; maybe stabilization in a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. More troops and surges or bombs for that matter are no longer the answer. War has changed. Even Mr. Bush is getting it: his mantra of a war on terrorism has changed to "the long struggle." The notion the West can get what it wants by throwing its weight around hasn't much hold in Staff Colleges today.

I have continued to read this tread with great interest and it has morphed into a discussion about health care vs national defense. First, as one that holds great reaspect for The Consitution, not as a living document but as chisled in stone.

The difference in Iraq and health care are plain, there are provisions in the Constitution for National Defense and not one word about providing health care for anyone. How did this country ever become daddy and mommy to everyone within it's borders, legal and illegal? What ever happened to the concept and belief of working hard and taking responsibilities for your own actions or lack thereof? How many in this country that do not have health insurance but do have a Flat Screen TV, New Car or other Luxuries that they put ahead of their needs?

So now there are many that belive we should beging another form of welfare and social crutches? I think that the government should follow the "Directions" (aka Constitution) and leave the rest to us. The social programs that begun in the 60's h ave, for the most part been a miserable failure.

Let me ask this....... How many here, reading this are willing to walk up to a stranger on the street, dig in your pocket and hand them thousands of dollars? Well, if you say yes, have at it, I for one have no interest in doing so and if we let the government get involved with health care, that is exactly what you will be doing.

It is referred to as a "re-distribution of wealth".... Marxism that leads to socialism that has been proven a miserable failure. Is that what you really want? I think not.


As one that has a more than passive interest in military matters I feel that tactically as well as strategically the war on teror will remain a very fluid situation. It will continue to be a long term war with no borders, no waring government and one where we have to be as agressive as our adversaries. We cannot talk to them "sternly" and talking to them is a sign of weakness. Some think that our action in Iraq was usless in that struggle, I totally disagree.

The Coalition in Iraq, taking out Saddam resonated loudly throught the middle east as well as the world. Syria has backe way off in its involvement in spreading state sponsored terror. Qaddafi as well. Matter of fact, other than Iran, those countries in the Mid east with "State" based terror support have toned it down.

Then you have N.Korea and Iran. They are NUTS, mentally instabe leadership but as long ss there are countries and companies supporitng them and blocking efforts by the international community to suppress them, they will remain a cancer on the world scene.

I don't profess to know the answers, because I don't. but I do know that "taking sternly" to our enemies as far from a solution.

Steve, If you don't mind. What form of health insurance covers you and your family? Who pays for it? Any family members in the medical profession? Regards, Jake

Steve, Britain learned quickly what worked with the insurgency in Northern Ireland and the British mainland, and it wasn't street-fighting, heavy weapons and bombs. A political strategy over 30 years brought implacable foes to the table. "The long struggle" works because insurgencies over time erode under measured military pressure and diplomacy, and are often consumed in pieces to democratic processes.

Syria suppressed mercilessly an Islamist revolt in 1982 which liberal democracies could not sanction today. The United States can use neither the British or Syrian strategies in Iraq because both models require a state, and the state was removed by potentate Bremer in the regime-change. Iraq's puppet gang favours Iran.

Canada has just finished an analysis of its six years in Afghanistan, asking "What are we doing?" instead of focussing primarily on humanitarian objectives, ostensibly our reasons for being there in the first place. The answer: failing militarily and in development because of ill-coordinated NATO and UN strategies.

Canada and the US aren't "talking sternly." They are recalibrating. They have learned that conventional military superiority is no guarantee of victory in guerilla warfare and, on the evidence, may produce opposite results i.e. Iraq.

Regards, King

My health insurance is through a pool at my employer. It is part of my compensation. Although I don't actually handle the money to pay for it, I jolly well earn it. I seriously resent implications that my employer somehow, benevolently, "gives it to me." My employer compensates me for my work and I work for my compensation. Part of my compensation is pay, part is insurance, part is vacation and holidays, part is a retirement plan, and a few others. Recently, we have had to "tighten out belts" on insurance; my employer had to adjust for rising costs vs the value of the part of my work that buys the insurance. Same for retirement. The world changes.

I have a big problem with "can't afford health insurance," when the leading health issue is obeasity!! I think Ormand is right that there is always money - - the issue is what you spend it on. I have no issue with social safety nets and charity. But, I think the country is becoming addicted to the idea of entitlement.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you know exactly how much was expended on your behalf from any source during 2007?

I do and it fits to my expectations of how much that part of my compensation is worth.

In Canada, it's usually sometime in June when we start paying ourselves, I think.

Jake I am one of the dirty unwashed..... being uninsured. I was between COBRA and obtaining a private policy .... I was asked to wait until after the Thanksgiving/Christmas/New Years holidays. Well, low and behold, before my appointment, I had a heart attack. Not just any heart attack, but a 99% blockage of what they referred to as "the widowmaker". I died, literally, on the gurney between the ER and the CCU and had to be jump started. (What happened during that time is another story best left for a more private venue)

They had a chopper coming for me and ended up in a mobile intensive care unit that took me to the regional trauma center. Was in CICU for a few days, until I stabilized enough to have emergency multiple by-pass surgery. I was in either the CICU,ER and Recovery Room for a total of 16 days, plus two in a regular room

Afterwards there were some fairly serious complications that had to be dealt with along with all the follow-ups, re-hab, etc over a period of months following "the event"

I was 44.

I won't divulge the actual amounts, but let's just say that it was well over a crap load of money between the surgeons, cardiologists, ER, Labs, ER again (complications remember?),Radiology, respiratory therapy, Pharmacy, Private nursing, emergency transportation, on and on and on and on and on. One injection, JUST one, was $5,700 (not a typo, Five thousand, seven hundred US Dollars) for the drug alone, not even including the syringe!!!!

My wife and I negotiated, and negotiated some more. Then, started writing checks. Took out a mortgageg on our previously paid for house and maxed out a Credit card ot three. The neighborhood where I live took a collection, people brought food and more good whishes and prayers than I deserve. I am still paying and still not able to purchase a private plan unless I want to pay over $3000 per month. Did I moan and groan or bitch? HELL NO!

We did it. Do I bitch and complain because the COUNTRY let me down? Hell No. It WAS MY FAULT that I did not have Insurance, no one else's. I fully accept the responsibility for my actions, in this case, inactions.

I am, by the Grace of God, alive and Damned Proud to be an American. No one in my family is in the med business, but I am a free market capitalist..... period. Our country was founded on these principles where people pulled themselves up by their boot straps when there was adversity and did not look to the government to bail them out. Call me a throw back..... But I also remember when I was a boy hearing JFK say, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Hard work, not sitting on my ass eating cheetos with my hand out is paying my bills as well as paying for my sanity, nothing else. I never inherited a dime from my parents, matter of fact had to pitch in and pay for their funerals. Grew up as a tentant on a dairy farm, worked my ass off since I was 11. Joined the US Army out of High School, ended up as a Ranger in some precarious situations where we never existed, walked the border between the East German and Czech borders for nearly 4 years, all in one stint by the way. had an armored vehicle blown out from under me because of piss poor parts in a heater .... No money for heaters, but enough to pay for the three guys that died in that explosion.

Nope, I am just a poor, old, uneducated country boy that worked for every single penny I have and will continue to do so until the day I die.

King, I think we disagree on history. Of course we occupied Japan as a result of WWII, and that's worked out pretty well. Maybe you could throw South Korea in there too, post-WWII, and that also worked well. We occupied the Philippines for 40-odd years, ending just after WWII, then helped them fight a Communist insurgency in the 50's. Turned out OK. And for those that say you can't impose democracy through force . . . was either Germany or Japan democratic before we occupied them?

Mark, there are even some pretty smart Democrats--former senator Bob Kerrey among them, and there's a guy with good credentials on terrorism as a member of the 9/11 Commission--who believe that an overly precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would have very negative consequences. It's not quite like leaving Vietnam, because there was not much danger that the NVA was going to attack us at home. The terrorists already have, and regardless of the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, we're dealing with the same kind of Islamist radicals in Iraq--including Al Qaeda--as attacked us on 9/11. We turned tail in Somalia, did virtually nothing following the attacks on our embassies in Africa. That emboldened the terrorists. Abandoning Iraq too soon would be even worse. As for bombing Iran, you skipped right over the details: only if we know for certain they're actively working on nukes. This is a country that, without question, sponsors terrorism (as in Hezbollah). This is a country that has promised to destroy Israel. Unlike the case of North Korea, with whom we can bargain to get them to shut down their nuke factory, we don't have anything Iran wants or needs. Although it's something I'd rather see us avoid, force may be the only option if they start making nukes.

I'm surprised to find I'm actually enjoying this conversation.

So, let me get this straight. Lining up to cash social security checks, using public roads, schools, and all the other benefits of a liberal society is ok, but having our government, that we give our lives and treasure for, help us with staying healthy and productive members of society is bad? I'm impressed with Steve's moral fortitude in his above referenced health struggle (and God bless you Steve, for pulling through and being here - we're glad you made it!), but would it have been so awful if he didn't have to mortgage his house and max out his credit cards just so he can have medical care?

I don't have health insurance either, being partially self employed as I am. The penalty for that is not having health insurance. Could I afford a catastrophic policy with a $10k deductible to mitigate against disasters described above? Yes, if I go without some other basic necessities of life. But even that is no guarantee, because the way it is set up now, health care providers stay in business by denying coverage. I've seen people with $600/mo health insurance still have to pay $100k for cancer care.

I just think it's a very warped sense of priorities when we can spend literally trillions on a war that has resulted in the deaths of upwards of a million people, but helping our own people is somehow evil and marxist. What the @#$@~~!! is that?

Larry, I don't think we disagree on history. Without checking my post, I think I said attempted occupations of non-western countries since the Second World War had ended in failure. Wasn't Korea a draw?

An interesting POV, referring to assymetric warfare, is "War no longer exists." General Sir Rupert Smith, commander of UK Armoured Division in 1991 Gulf War, commander of UN forces in Bosnia in 1995, and deputy NATO supreme commander in the Kosovo campaign, sets this out in his book Utility of Force.

Smith goes beyond Mao's notions of guerilla theorists (fish swimming among the people), claiming we've moved from interstate industrial war to war among the people. People are active protagonists whom both sides seek to influence; military force is rarely the deciding factor.

Winning hearts and minds is not subordinate but the chief purpose for which force is used. Kandahar chieftains and elders today debated a draft manifesto dissenting with Canadian "foreign occupiers" causing too much misery and civilian deaths---and supporting the popular idea that Taliban fighters must be called into the talks.

Seems a convincing endorsement of Smith's premise to me.

Regards, King

Let me get this straight -through sacrifice you could buy catastrophic insurance, but you would rather have the Taxpayers buy it for you - via force of law ?

Also - better check your math on the 1 Million dead in A-Stan & Iraq.

Steve,
You have your pride and self respect and my admiration. Taking care of ones self is hard and takes sacrifice. I walked your path in health at 48 and still believe in personal responsibility and scrifice. I find many of my Montana friend feel the same and they are proud of taking care of them selves and working darn hard to do it. Its nice to know there are others with the same values.
Best,
Ron

Postoak, I think health care is a fundamental human right, not a privelege. How it's paid for is open for negotiation. Since we pay dearly for a government that [supposedly] works for our best interests, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect something in return.

As for my math, recent independent estimates I have read stated total Iraqi deaths in the 600,000 to 1 million range, not counting the millions that have also been displaced.

Steve, I have edited just slightly above for brevity. But, I must say that is a spectacular answer. My hat is off to you. You are what you are and do what you say. Fortunately, I have never been faced with anything like that.

But, what I fail to see is why this makes America better. Why should health care break someone and take their retirement? As has been discussed above, we collectively pay for education and many other things. Why should Americans not have the collective security of good cheap health care. Why should we spend more as a country for health care and get a worse and more expensive product?

I am cutting and pasting a story from Canada from the TS forum where this discussion is also a common topic. I expect the poster will not mind:

"I live in Vancouver, BC. On January 14 my wife gave birth to our twin boys, Andrew and Brennan. At 18 weeks into her pregnancy, Brennan was diagnosed with a congenital diaphragmatic hernia. The odds of survival at birth were approx. 55% in a singleton pregnancy and these odds were cut in half again in the case of a multiple pregnancy.

Long story short, my wife carried the babies to full term (38 weeks which is considered full term for twins) and Brennan is still in neonatal intensive care. During the counseling we received, we were told that best case scenario, Brennan would remain in NICU for 3 to 4 months before being well enough to go home. As of yesterday, the doctors were thinking that he may be able to go home next week! A full 6 weeks early.

From the time that we found out about the condition until now, my wife and I figure that there have been over 100 health care professionals directly involved in our care - there were 18 doctors and nurses in the delivery room alone! We have received the best of care and can honestly say we never had to wait for anything or felt that we were receiving anything less than the best of care.

Beside Brennan's crib is another baby from Fort St. John (way up in Northern BC). He was born 11 weeks early and weighed less than 2 lbs. He was medi-vac'ed to Vancouver and is doing well, but still has a long road ahead of him. The parents are staying at Easter Seal house and are coping. They have been receiving the same quality of care that we have and are as grateful as we are for our health care system. The father of this baby is a heavy truck mechanic and is just making ends meet.

Yes our health care system is not perfect, but I certainly can't complain about it one bit. "

I think this is a much better societal (and personal) outcome than your struggle. Why is this a bad thing?

Jake

If you think American Healthcare is expensive and bad now, wait till it is a "Fundamental Right" - oh boy.

Boy it would be nice if the government government could supply the best healthcare and spread that cost over all the taxpayers. That sounds like the best arrangement...except, then the government would be deciding what is the best healthcare, what procedures and surgeries are acceptable, and how much the doctor is allowed to make. Then, the rich people would hire the best doctors to treat them on the side. The smartest doctors would not go for the government deal and just work for private pay. We'd be stuck with the second rate doctors and the government deciding what treatment is best. And, you better live the lifestyle the government approves of, or you will not be eligable for even the second rate care.

DeeKay, you haven't been paying attention. We're already stuck with private insurance companies "deciding what procedures and surgeries are acceptable, and how much the doctor is allowed to make." And while the HMOs and drug company executives pile up the profits, we are paying more for health care, and getting less for it,than everyone in countries that have universal health care.

No one in Europe has to re-mortgage his house, max out his credit cards or get handouts from neighbors to pay for needed health care. The fact that an American on this board had to do so reflects shame on all of us and our country.

You are right about one thing, though: the rich people will get the best care. They do everywhere. Always have, always will. Nothing wrong with that.

King, the point isn't whether Korea was a "draw". I guess we occupied South Korea as much as we're occupying Iraq, after driving the NK's and Chicoms back across the border, and it's both free and democratic. Works for me. We've also helped to establish free and democratic states in the Balkans (not sure how "Western" they are, both Bosnia and Kosovo being majority Muslim). Looks to have worked in the first case, and hopefully the second will as well, without serious fighting. War can have many faces, and it isn't likely to be the same everywhere.

Mark, I'd check those "independent" (how far left are they?) sources against "official" sources, and as an intel guy, if I questioned either, I'd accept nothing more nor less than halfway between. Don't think you can get to a million, even if you add in the Gulf War. And "displaced" is a whole lot different than "dead". Iraq is a serious situation, but it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion if you accept everything the harshest critics of the war put out as absolute truth--just as much as if you accept everything the government says as absolute truth. The best idea is to question both and look for solid evidence.

It appears that the most vehement condemnation of universal health care comes from people who don't know anything about it.

Open your eyes and look at the facts, postoak! http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf Health care is better and cheaper in countries where it is a fundamental right. If the French and Italians and Spanish can deliver better health outcomes for less money, why can't we?

Just what does all this have to do with our right to keep and bear arms?? That's what this thread is SUPPOSED to be about.
Jim

Jake,

Let me ask this: Where does is stop? Where do we, as those that choose those that govern, say Enough is enough? We have established many social programs that have proven dismal failures.

I go back to the US Constitution and the framers of that sacred document. There are no provisions in there for a national health care system. As I stated previously, I am a strict Consitutionalist, if it ain't in the directions, don't do it.

"Hand a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will never go hungry."

Obesity, sloth, inactivity, poor diet, smoking, excessive drinking, drug abuse and other bad lifestyle CHOICES seems to be behind the majority of chronic health issues facing our citizens. If there were more attention towards prevention vs treatment after the fact, I may be able to support that. How about FORCING, via the FCC TV programs and free advertisements promoting good health? Do this during the Mindless reality programs that have the couch potatoes in this country so enthralled. Put pressure on celebs like Britany, Paris, Lindsay, Kiefer and others to do FREE public service announcements and programs as part of their "rehabilitation"?

I have other ideas and suggestions that follow the self help and educational track, much through the private sector, churches and the like. THAT will make America better. Teaching people to take responsibility for their own actions WILL make America better. Getting people off their dead ass and excersizing WILL Make America better. Slapping the hand that is held out for a freebie instead of filling it with MY hard earned money and falso hope WILL make America better. Teaching that Hard work and Education is more important than American Idol WILL make American better. Reducing the size of our Government(s) and lowering taxes weaning people off of social programs WILL Make America better. I can go on. Finally, by making AMERICA better, Americans become stronger and better also.

Look back through history and see what AMERICANS have done...... on their own without the Government to support them. They moved west as a way to better themselves. Came from foreign lands with nary a dollar in their pocket to become multi-millionaires. They were the ancesters of slaves that became scientists, doctors, clergy, judges,generals etc by hard work and fighting the prejudice and bigotry to do it. They were and are soldiers that fought and died for our freedom and to protect the rights of those among the population that hate and despise them. These people Made and Make America Better.

The more you do for someone the less they will do for themselves. Nope, it's time to say NO. That, or how about we all live in a collectiive society where no one gets paid, no one has to pay for anything, but we all have exactly the same thing, same cubicle to live in, same little Trabant to drive, same clothes to wear, same food to eat, no McDonalds, Wendys, KFC Taco Bell.......... Same Health care, same dentist, no choices, have to register if we move to another county, have to get permission to move from state to state. We all have the same gas allowance and the government offical tucks you in and night while handing you your "binky".

Nope, that is NOT what America is all about. Time we ALL did took inventory of what America really is and what it meanss to us. Look inside yourself and ask What Have I Done for My Country Lately? What Have I done for my fellow man lately? Bet the majority that do take that time, may not like the answers.

You asked, "Why should Americans not have the collective security of good cheap health care?" BECAUSE it ain't in the DIRECTIONS. No one ever said it would be fair on my birth certificate, all it said is that I have the same chance. ................ and the use of the word, "Collective" scares the hell out of me. Sounds like the Borg or, Mao.

Sorry, but to quote that old maritime philosopher, "I yam what I Yam".

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

I think basic health care could be included under "general Welfare." However, as only an army and navy are mentioned in the Constitution, I suppose we should eliminate the Marines and Air Force.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_ca...80%93present%29

Postoak, there's more than one way to look at a fundamental right, in my view. I don't think of the poor and miserable as free peoples--anywhere. Cuba may have higher international recognition than Canada, with a third of our population and only twice the size of my province of Nova Scotia. It is a "poor" country compared to ours.

Cuba is repressive on legal rights---expression, protest but easing 19 months under Raul Castro--- but a giant on the social side of rights: low unemployment, universal healthcare, best in the developing world, lower infant mortality than US, free education, 30,000 doctors working in 72 countries around the world.

Are 47 million Americans denied a fundamental right? That's for you to choose. Are having a job, access to healthcare and education integral to the human imbodiment of freedom? Cuba thought so. A papal annuncio told my father if it takes 100 years to make Cuba's revolution Christian, it will be worth it. For 400 years his church provided little to the Cuban people. The Pope and Castro had something going.

My brother last year went to his new doctor in the fishing village where we grew up. When it came time to fill out a prescription for his debilitating chronic disease, the Cuban doctor asked if he wanted his usual pills from a well-known pharmaceutical company or a generic of the same. Difference: $500 to $33. There may be a lesson there from Cuba's healthcare model.

What if being a doctor didn't pay a decent living, so they all quit? What happens to your "right" then? I believe your only fundamental "right" is to take care of yourself as you see fit without interference from others. You don't have a "right" to anything I have to work and pay for! I'm very sorry if you can't afford what you need, but that's not my problem; it's yours. I need a $20,000 shotgun, but not at your expense. Highways and social security are not rights either. They are things that we as a society have AGREED to pay for collectively so we can all use/benefit from them. We, as a society already have too many things that we consider "rights" that are "needs", and sometimes just "wants" that someone else pays for. I would be more than happy to give up many of my so called "rights" in exchange for what they cost me and for the return of the control of my life.

King, although the quality of the care certainly varied, we do need to remember that ALL Communist countries had both low unemployment and universal healthcare. K-12 education has always been free in the US. Also freer of propaganda than the education they get in Cuba.

Americans will choose whether society has responsibility to others on healthcare, Mr. Frech, or whether it's every man for himself. That's part of the current great national debate in America, the first and for about a century the only modern liberal democracy. On this one, it may be fair to say that a narrow parochialism is holding back the republic's growth and may be fostering intolerance. I put my money on the republic; it gets it right over time.

Mr. Brown, thanks again for your opinion of how we should run our country.

Dev,
Just make sure and mark your ballot correctly.
Best,
Ron

Haven't noticed any shortage of doctors in France or Italy or Spain or any of the other countries with universal health care. To the contrary, Canada, Italy, Germany and others have more doctors per capita than we do. Matter of fact, I have an MD friend who left the US to practice in Canada, saying it was less paperwork and hassle to get paid and he had more time to devote to patient care.

But I bet they don't have as many health insurance and drug company execs making 7-figure salaries as we do. Here's an eye-opener for anyone struggling to pay medical bills or health insurance premiums: http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm

Larry, on the propaganda, probably so, but propaganda also blinds us from learning from other nations. Canadians think they have the best health system in the world, as most Americans may think of theirs. A distinguished panel appointed by our prime minister has revealed how we're being misled on Afghanistan. Canada could learn from Scandinavians, among the world's most productive economies who are working hard to limit poverty.

Other countries do better than Canada with environment and development of natural resources.On any terms, however, what Cuba has done in social reform over 50 years is remarkable. I was there at the time of the revolution, from one end to the other, in the Sierra Maestra, later at the Bay of Pigs one week before the invasion, interviewed Castro a couple times. He did what he told me he was going to do. Remarkable for a politician.

I take exception to the comment that education is free from K-12. While there may not be tuition to government schools, they are far from free. Take a closer look at your tax bill next time.

The quote from the constitution is very accurate and true, but as I said, where do you draw the line? Some where some how someone has to have the balls to say NO MORE. When you mention the Euro countries and Cuba as examples, please be honest and accurate enough to tell us how much (as a percentage) they are paying in taxes as compared to us. Cuba, a strict Marxist, Communist state has all it can do to keep its people there..... Why are so many willing to risk their lives to get to the USA if is is so great there and sucks so bad there?

When I was on patrol on the Iron Curtain, I had more than one occasion to see qnd talk to people who risked electric fencing, dogs, armed guards, minefields and untold atrocities (If caught.... these atrocities would make waterboarding look like a weekend at Dismey) just to have a CHANCE to get to the USA. Ever wonder why that was, and still is, as witnessed by over 12 million ILLEGAL aliens not to mention countless LEGAL immigrants come here?

I guess they all want crappy health care and lower taxes........

Please be honest and stay focused on health care cost, rather than burying it in general taxes (which pay farm subsidies, pensions, roads, etc.). It really doesn't matter whether it's paid in taxes or premiums or cash, the cost is what we're discussing.

Americans pay more per capita for health care than anyone else in the world. Lots more. Almost twice as much as Europeans - and their health care systems are outperforming ours AND covering every citizen.

Steve,
The country of Norway has a 60% (aprox.)overall tax. This includes as of two years ago a 23% national sales tax. Their gas is a little over $6.00 a gallon. Yes their medical is free and so is the dental, but at what cost. I admire them because it works for them. The country of Norway is about the same size as Montana. It would be hard to compare them to the entire United States. Even the EU has not attempted to standardize its members. They had a battle just getting to a common currency. We may not be perfect but we are free to choose and to vote on a regular basis.
Takk,
Ron

Don't you think it's a little naive to expect that those drafting the constitution would have anticipated the population growth of the nation, not to mention all the needs of the people, 200+ years into the future?

If I did that for health care, I would also have to consider revisions to the rest of the Document because of changed technology in guns, printing, airwaves, TV, DVD, Music, pornography, photography, transportation, phamachology, illegal drugs,...... on and on and on ad infinitum.

I can see where the Consitution and its ammnedments would be quite a different document if the same authors were writing it today. They did not and we still have the greatest country in the history of the world mostly as a result of that document and those that devised it.

To quote Merle Haggard, ..... "if you don't love it, leave it......." If life is SO much better where you pay 60 to 70% taxes, then why are those countries (Like Cuba, Sweden, and others) not experiencing a HUGE influx of immigration as we are? (and always have?) If Life is SO much better there, why aren't those that profess how much better it is packing their bags?

Ireland has a much higher net immigration rate than the US. So does Canada. And Australia and New Zealand, and others. They all have national health care systems. Countries achieve lower immigration rates by having more stringent immigration laws - tax rates and social systems have much less to do with immigration than job opportunities.

Sorry King, but "social reform" isn't something most Americans would trade for freedom, and that's the deal with the devil in place in Cuba. When's the last time they had a free election? What's their equivalent of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution? Or the 2nd, for that matter? Or various and sundry other ones? I'm guessing that if you ran for office in Canada on Fidel's program for the last 50 years--not what he promised to do, but what he delivered--a majority of Canadians would also vote against making that deal with the devil.

I remember when the late CIA defector Philip Agee, resident in Cuba, came to give a speech at Iowa State. I hit him with the last question during Q&A: "Mr. Agee, do you think a former officer in the Cuban Intelligence Service could give a speech like you just have given, on the campus of a university in Cuba? And if your answer is no, doesn't that tell us something important about the difference between our two societies?" He stuttered and stammered about Cuba being "under attack" from the United States, so certain freedoms had to be curtailed. Laughable.

Question on universal health care in the United States: Do I get to keep the excellent coverage I have now, both as a fringe benefit of my wife's job and my status as retired military? Or do I got thrown into the same pot with everyone else? Any chance I can "opt out" if I wish to do so? I think that's the problem many Americans are going to have with universal health care if it's some sort of a universal mandate: Why should I trade what I have now, and like, for something that might not be as good?

After following this interminable thread, I'd have to agree with a line from Sam Harris: "Civilization is still beseiged by the armies of the preposterous." There's more than one foot soldier on this board.
Will

It's noble to think of the constitution as a finite document, but it's the priciples that are finite, not the document itself. What you say you'd have to do is exactly what we must do: consder the principles in light of the changes that have happened to the nation, the population, the world, and mankind in general since it was written. Many of the major issues we face today weren't even imaginable when it was written; it would be like trying to govern modern day science by the principles set out in a Jules Verne novel - worse, frankly. The writers you hold in such high esteem would never have approved of it; they were far too enlightened for that. The constitution is, and must be, a living document.

In virtually every universal health care system today, individual citizens can enhance their coverage by buying private insurance at their own expense. The universal health care proposals by US policitians all allow those with better coverage to keep it. The notion of being forced into inferior coverage is a product of fear-mongering by the health care industry.

Jack - first off comparing the USA to a cherry picked group of countries is not a valid comparsion to the USA - Why don't you folks up in Minnesota pass your own Universal Single Payer Government Health and - I'll just take my chances. Show us how it should be done.

I will always find it dificult to believe anyone can know what anyone 200 years ago would think today. They have written words that have with stood the test of over 200 years of people desiring a fluid document with modern interpretations. There are few words spoken or written that will stand that test of time.
When I swore so many years ago to uphold the Constitution I didn't opt out by saying only as I enterpret it or when its convienient.
Best,
Ron

Postoak,
You and I have a common thought about each state providing their own universal health care. It would be nice to hear from the state of Mass. since I understand they have such a creature.
Best,
Ron

Larry, I admire the United States. I would not want to live there. Nor would you trade places with any other on earth. I think of Canada as freer, as you do your country. By our terms, we're both right. Cuba today compared to Batista's US Mafia-dominated playground provides the first freedoms the country ever had.

Your extrapolations from healthcare are similar to the one of NATO providing democracy to Kosovo. Kosovo is not a democracy. As Bosnia, another example of might is right, Kosovo will become an EU-US protectorate in practise, its governance subordinate to its protectors.There are 100,000 Serbs remaining in Kosovo.

Yes, Canadian infantry and fighter bombers had a prominent role in that deal, as a NATO member. But already there's questioning here of supporting seccesionist and irredentist movements that want to unilaterally break away, the precedence it sets for Quebecois, Catalans, Basques, Aceh, Chechnya, Kashmir etc.

Determining independence by outside force is a tricky business. I wish Kosovo well.

Do you keep your excellent coverage under a universal system? I should think it would be like elsewhere: you pay through taxes for a universal system. Those who want to pay extra into a private plan that provides Mayo, Lahey and John Hopkins, the choice is yours. Two-tier has always been that way, no?

No, you can't opt out, nor can we opt out because we don't support government policies on daycare, ATVs, gun control, public broadcasting, carbon taxes, abortion, same-sex, the war in Afghanistan or our military exchange commitments with our allies. Imagine the consequences of US opting out on the war in Iraq.

Canadians think of medicare as part of their citizenship.

Regards, King

Cherry-picked? Oh yeah, like all of the other major industrial nations on earth? Like France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, the UK, Denmark, Ireland, Canada, Australia, etc.? Like the OECD countries, all of which have universal health care that outperforms us, and pay less for it?

What is wrong with Americans today? We used to be proud of our leadership, our innovation, our quality, our efficiency. Now we're proud of the most cumbersome, bureaucratic and inefficient health care system in the developed world, and the only thing we're tops in, is the cost.

The UK - you suggest better healthcare is provided in the UK ?

Jack - you pull off Successful Goverment provided health care in your state - or any other and after 5 years I might consider it. It will be interesting to watch from afar.

Dang Larry, Nice to see that the discussion is as honest as it is. Stimulating I tell you.
I think the sentiment of your statement above is usually the basis of many things human. "I got mine and I earned it and to heck with them that ain't." I understand that logic and argument. It is pretty straight forward.
Then of course, we get stories like Steve's unbelievable travail above. So where do you stand on that? Steve is certainly taking it like John Wayne. No issue there. But, from a societal point of view, is it a good thing?
Regards, Jake

Jake, I think the last figure I saw showed 47 million Americans without coverage. About 1/6 of the nation. What I'm not game for is covering those 47 million--some of whom are real tear-jerk stories, others of whom can afford to pay but choose not to--if it means that the rest of us are kicked down to the least common denominator of coverage. According to figures recently published in the Des Moines Register, universal health care in Iowa would cost $550 million per year. They say that it would simply be "cost shifting", because those of us that currently pay for insurance are paying more to cover those that don't, and the lower cost of our insurance will offset the required tax increase. So show me that my wife's employer is going to give her additional take-home pay equal to my tax increase, and show me that we can keep the coverage we now have, without penalty, and I'm willing to listen. (Missouri is our next-door neighbor, so the "show me" stuff occasionally rubs off.)

King, you're confusing social reform with freedom. Cuba has better health care and education now than it did under Batista. But it also has no political dissent, no freedom of speech. The Soviet Union provided better health care and education than Tsarist Russia. Overall improvement, or not? Mussolini made the trains run on time; Hitler built the autobahn. That does not make them, nor the systems they created, worthy of admiration. A very famous American said "Give me liberty or give me death!" Well, death is likely to come sooner with poor health care, but personally I'd rather live free--as the motto of a state bordering your country suggests.

"Secessionist" movements . . . Yugoslavia was an artificial construct, brought about by WWI and the end of the Hapsburg Empire. The people of Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Kosovo etc are simply withdrawing from something their ancestors were forced into in the first place. Should the Soviet Union have remained one big, unhappy country simply because a long list of tsars and commissars put it together by force, or should its component pieces have had the opportunity to go their own way, as they have? Secession isn't always bad, nor is it always violent. I doubt it would be if Quebec were to declare its independence, any more than it was when the Czechs and the Slovaks chose divorce. There's even talk of it happening in Belgium.

As for opting out, this country has a different tradition than yours, or most of the world's. We haven't gone nearly so far down the road to socialism. And interestingly enough, some of the countries that have--France being an excellent example--are taking steps in the opposite direction. There has been talk of at least partially privatizing our longest-standing and largest social program, Social Security--precisely so that those individuals willing to take personal responsibility for their own retirement could at least partially opt out.

Americans are big on choice. We tend to look with disfavor on "one size fits all" solutions. That's why you see the skepticism where universal health care is concerned, even though we all realize the system we now have is not a good one. The problem lies in coming up with one that offers coverage for all without forcing people into something that's worse than what they already have, or forcing them to pay more for what they already have to sustain yet another large government bureaucracy.

With HillaryCare and ObamaCare, "another large bureaucracy" is exactly what we'll have. HC and OC would keep in place the massively redundant private health insurance system (a bureaucracy in every company, a mini-bureaucracy for every plan) and simply add another bureaucratic layer.

But there are better models working well out there. Truly universal health care has only one bureaucracy, one set of rules. That's why basic health care is more cost-efficient in the OECD countries.

Right now, private health care administration costs eat up 19 to 24 percent of every premium dollar - while government administration costs for Medicare, Medicaid and VA care are running below 10 per cent.

Every doctor's office, every clinic, every hospital in the US has paid staffs doing nothing but paper-shuffling, trying to sort out who pays what to whom, from among hundreds of different insurance plans. Most of the dollars paid to those people would be spent on providing health care in a universal system.

The "show me" attitude only proves the blinkered view of so many Americans - we seem to be unable to look beyond our own borders, where dozens of developed nations are protecting all of their citizens, and achieving better health care outcomes at far lower cost. They've been "showing" us for years - if only we'd look.

Meanwhile, our "system" blindly allows people to die while private insurance companies deny coverage and their CEOs pocket multi-million dollar salaries and stock options. What amazes me is that so many Americans accept this like sheep, and just keep getting fleeced. The very fact that a US veteran has to re-mortgage his home, max credit card debt and accept handouts from neighbors in order to pay for necessary health care should be a wakeup call for everyone here.

America's squeamishness about universal health care reminds me of Churchill's remark, "You can count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

I am not sure what health care has to do with double guns other than the fact that most governments that have socialized health care are also smart enough to know people should not own guns. Do the people coming from Canada for health care in a count as immigrants? I guess that now that the auto industry has proven you can't pay health care and compete with Asian makers we need to put our country into the same problem.
bill

I lived in Canada for three years. There was major concern over health care fraud. Why? I mean everyone's covered, right?
A friend's 27 year old wife died after a miscarriage because they used drugs and didn't have a laser or fiber optic camera to find the bleeding and stop it.
My secretary's mother fell on the ice in March and smashed her shoulder. They bound up her shoulder, and were still "considering" what to do in June, when she went to doctors in Rochester, NY and they told her she would require extensive surgery to break bones that had begun to knit in the wrong positions.
Do not get sick on Ray (sp) days. ALL the doctors close up shop on the same days. The Prime Minister of Ontario wanted all doctors to close a set number of days each quarter to control costs. He didn't come up with the idea of them all closing on the SAME days; they did that.
I cannot imagine the U. S. Government doing ANYTHING efficiently. Actual costs will skyrocket. And the poor souls who pay taxes will take it in the rear again. What about the "poor"? I don't care. It's called natural selection. Besides, it is against the law for a hospital to refuse care for any reason, so why does anyone NOT have health care now? Just because they do not have a regular doctor so they can get a temporary handicapped sticker does not make me lose a wink of sleep.
"Certain" candidates are just buying votes again. Welfare revisited.

Well, Virginian, at least you're honest about it. Many here would agree with you, but don't have the cojones to admit it.

Anecdotes are meaningless. My son-in-law was brought into an ER with a smashed elbow and painful wrist. Despite his request, the ER people said the wrist was just a sprain and didn't need an X-ray. It was a weekend accident, and he had to wait three days before they could find a surgeon to work on his elbow (multiple pins and plates needed).

A month after the accident, his wrist was still swollen and painful. He went back to the ER, where an X-ray showed it to be broken and half-mended wrong. They had to re-break his wrist and reconstruct it.

So bad things happen. Everywhere. And anyone can come up with anecdotes about health care failures. Everywhere. But it is well documented that OECD countries with universal health care cover more of their people, at less cost, and achieve better outcomes, than America does.

You can't deny the facts. You can only close your eyes to them.

I read through these posts this morning and admire the thoughtful and friendly expression of opinion. What I have not read is any ideas for solutions to the cost of health care. Availability of care is not an issue. Emergency rooms in the USA must examine and treat everyone who claims illness, real or not. People don't die here because of refused claims either. They can and will be treated. The question is who pays the bill and how much does it cost.
The solutions to this question in my opinion don't require more government but less. The answer is not more insurance but less. Self employed people have the option of a medical savings plan that allows for high deductible insurance at low cost along with a checking account that is used to pay for standard care. All costs are tax deductible and the rollover in the account are there to grow tax free in perpetuity. This gives the individual the ability to negotiate charges before care is given.
If this opportunity was offered every citizen of this country we could take back control of our health care and the costs involved. If people who currently have employer provided health insurance took a pay raise instead of the insurance and were allowed to buy a MSP they would be far ahead financialy and in control of their care.
Many Americans have also been brainwashed into thinking that if they don't have health insurance some calamity will befall them. Stop and think about how much you personaly have spent on health insurance in the last ten years and compare it to what the care you have required would have cost out of pocket. Health insurance has become some sort of safety blanket, the lack of which causes some sort of uneasiness in many people.
Another possible solution is a return to states rights where the Federal government relinquishes the power of taxation back to the states where it belongs. In this scenario every state would have the ability to establish its own system of health care if it so chose and every citizen would have the option of picking a state to live in that suited there own ideal.
I know these ideas are long shots at best but maybe they are something to work from. The most important things to do in my opinion are to remove the power and influence from the insurance industry, take control of your own health care and leave government out of the equation.
One last qeustion for everyone to chew on. What would happen if a groundswell of people gutsy enough to to take a risk for their own independence dropped their health insurance? Or quit paying their Federal taxes. Change can happen but not by itself.
Peter

Peter, you haven't been paying attention: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=4038257&page=1

bill, you're right that OTs often tend to stray, particularly when we inject a little politics into our discussions, as this one. The magic of the board is that they don't take up the time and space of others, only those who click here. For me, it provides discussion with members of extraordinary knowledge and wide experience in a polite and respectful forum. I value inquiry and debate.

Larry, where's the freedom and choice of 47 million Americans---almost half again Canada's population---who can't afford private health insurance or private medical bills? Their choices are bankruptcy or no treatment or illness or death. We come at this from different ideologies---and fair enough---but all I see is misery and loss of productivity, not to mention loss of dignity, often without fault of their own.

Jack, the problem is, no one here in the States--or at least none of the candidates--is proposing the systems you hold up as models. Don't show it to me in Canada or Britain or Sweden or anywhere else. Show me the proposal for THIS COUNTRY. Show it to my elected representatives. If I like it, I'll tell them I think it's a good idea. If enough of them like it and the president also likes it, then we'll have it. But the fact that no one of political significance is talking about what you seem to want them to talk about means it won't happen here any time soon. Maybe you'd better run for office.

King, some of those 47 million ARE expressing their choice--by not paying for coverage they could afford. Why? Because they're gambling they won't get sick, and because they know they'll get treated in the emergency ward if they do. Some certainly can't afford it. But once again, we're talking social programs, not freedom. A country can be free, yet without socialized retirment programs, socialized medicine, etc. Cuba is an example of a country that isn't free, hasn't held an election for about 50 years, but offers its citizens socialized medicine.

King, I spent the summer of 1980 on active duty at Ft McCoy, WI. We were one of three destinations for about 100,000 Cuban refugees that came over in the "boat lift". The other two were Ft. Chaffee, AR and Ft. Indiantown Gap, PA. I don't know about you, but I'd have a feeling something was pretty wrong with the good old USA if, all of a sudden, 3 million people were to pick up and leave because they couldn't stand living under Bush. (That'd be the rough equivalent of 100,000 Cubans, given the difference in population.) And of course thousands of Cubans had already fled, long before the 1980 boat lift. Would you think things were just fine in Canada, King--govt health care and all--if 350,000 Canadians were to pack up and leave all at once?

To some people, free speech is more important than free health care. That may be why our founding fathers put freedom of speech in the Constitution (the very first amendment, in fact), but not free health care.

Everyone seems to have had their rant. The quadrennial silly season is here. Hurrah!

I suggest that politicians cannot simply ignore the Bill of Rights, and that the upcoming hearing of the Supreme Court on Second Amendment rights (the first such consideration in well over 50 years) is far more germane to gun ownership than the upcoming election.

Stay tuned.

Jack, I read the above article and don't see how Cigna could have prevented the transplant. The family should have insisted on the operation regardless of financial liability and taken Cigna to court later.
I think we need to take control of our own health care, not allow government or insurance companies control.

Try checking into a for-profit American hospital without the administrators going through your pockets, Peter. I can't even get a routine checkup at my local clinic without showing a current insurance card! No hospital takes on six-figure surgical procedures without making sure they'll get paid. The family didn't have the bucks, which is why the medical team was trying to get it out of Cigna.

The opposition to universal health care on this forum is very long on opinion and hearsay, and totally devoid of facts. The facts show that US health care is the most expensive on earth, and one of the less cost-effective. And that around the world (and here at home) government-run programs are more efficient and providing better health care outcomes.

If anyone here has evidence to the contrary, I'd sure like to see it posted!

Jack - are you refering to the Kevin Drumm Study ?

I am referring to data from the World Health Organization 2000 World Health Report, from The Economist, from Family Magazine, from the University of Maine - all of which I have referenced here, and provided links to some.

Opponents of universal health care, as usual, seem to be immune to facts. So far they've only posted unsupported opinion.

Now Jack, I expect this is not the first sociological/political discussion which was supported by rhetoric and emotional statements rather than facts.
Like the line from the Bogart movie: "Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts."

Jake

Facts? Can you prove that the publishers of these "facts" have no personal agenda in their writing? I ask this question because the "facts" are counter to my own personal experience. Free anything is going to be abused by a crowd. And, universal health care is certainly not free. I'm sure it will be tax supported (there is no "goveenment money," only tax money). Having dealt with Social Security all my working life (oof the farm and in jobs where you got paid directly), I have no thought of being allowed to opt out. Further, I have to question the foundation of the concept of effeciency improvement. Are we going to demand higher productivity of the current health care workers? Reduce the number? Cut their pay? Other ideas on higher efficiency?

I really wish I could feel warm and fuzzy about universal health care. But, I don't. So far, nobody has convinced me that I will be better off - as well off - or, even slightly worse off. I think my taxes are fixing to go roofward to pay for all the services that people, currently held in check economically, will have free access to under universal health care.

Money is the usual rationer of goods and services. All goods and services are economically scarce. Demand is held in balance with supply by price. Government decision as to who gets what and when is the substitute for financial control.

Anyone here who currently has health care insurance that is eager to trade it in for some form of universal coverage?

Oh, come on, Rocketman! The World Health Organization's "agenda"? The University of Maine's "agenda"? The Economist's "agenda"? Family Magazine's "agenda"?

There are no data anywhere that contradict these facts:

- health care in the US costs more per capita, and a much larger percentage of GDP (US 15.4%), than any other nation in the world (Euro area 9.6%);

- more than 40 million Americans have no health care plan;

- US life expectancy is lower, and infant mortality higher, than most countries with universal health care;

- in the US, administration costs for private health care are significantly higher than administrative costs for government-run programs (see http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf )

If you can find any legitimate source that contradicts any of this, please post it here. I have been citing my sources - what are yours?

As for your "personal experience," I'd be interested in knowing what experience you have had with universal health care plans.

Germany during two years of residence as a private citizen (2001-02). I was not impressed with the "universal" part.

You want me to believe tha media, schools, and WHO have no agenda? I'm listening.

Well, if we're going to go with universal health care (why? because it's a "right", or because it just seems the right thing to do?), then how about universal housing? A roof over every head. Universal employment. And a chicken in every pot. It seems that we need to draw a line somewhere, because eventually, all of this universal stuff runs into personal responsibility--and personal responsibility suffers as a result.

I'll bet any of my guns Americans will get it, maybe before I die if I eat my greens. I'm pushing 76.

I doubt that you're really listening, Rocketman. But if you are, please note that CAHI, the outfit that published the report I cited above ( http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf ) does have an agenda - it's a lobbying outfit for the private health insurance industry! I included a private insurance source to counter your allegation of bias. But even after juggling the books (by not counting the cost of commissions and profits!) their study admits that private insurance costs more to administer than Medicare.

Yet the nay-sayers keep alleging that gov't insurance would cost more - and produce nothing to support their arguments. No data, no studies, just uninformed denial and willful ignorance. The facts are there, and no one has produced any evidence to the contrary.

Jack, let me throw a few random thoughts and facts your way.
Physicians are the only business people I know of who are not allowed to set their own rates for services rendered. Medicare sets rates each year and insurance companies negotiate reimbursements to doctors based on those rates. Here we find two problems along with two solutions. Government is interfering with the free market and insurers are taking up to 25% of health care costs in administation and profit. Eliminate both and reduce cost.
The cost of meeting federal requirements and malpractice raise the cost of care. Reduce or eliminate both. As an example/ I have a friend here in town who is a neurosurgeon. He has three partners and two PA's. The six of them who are billable have to support an unbillable office staff of 26 to 28 people. Much of this is cost of compliance.
We also currently have a rationed form of universal health care in place. If an individual meets criteria ranging from income level to unmarried and pregnant to length of disability etc. their health care is provided free.
As one last note, emergency rooms across the country average collecting slightly less than 40% of what they bill. Doesn't that tell you that people are being treated regardless of ability to pay? It is actually illegal for a doctor to ask about ability to pay in this country, at lest in an emergency situation and they can be sued and sanctioned for doing so.
Once again I will say that changes made but our approach is different. I do not want a government that takes care of me, I want a government that allows me my right to take care of myself. Send me an e mail at pburke106@aol.com. I am coming through Minneapolis in June on my way to fish in Ontario.

Jack,
I appreciate all the information you have provided and I am sure it will guide you in the direction you choose. Like others I have experience and still have family under state run health care. It has good and bad points as most universal/state run organizations have. I have never tried to compare only one aspect of a government under socialism as some do. The gun control folks look at Japan as did the auto industry of years gone by. After we have found the culture from the groud up is different enough to be less than a good comparison. As in any good debate we use what supports our point of view as I have. My short life and an exposure of four years in the Pacific and another four years in Holland with extended family in Norway all leads me to be cautious about comparisons by any cause no matter how well versed they seam. This is only one more opinion for thought.
Best,
Ron

Here's more fact, from The New England Journal of Medicine:

"In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada.

"Conclusions: The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system."

Still waiting for some facts from the nay-sayers.

Jeezum, Jack, you are one hard-headed SOB. Why do keep wanting to confuse us with FACTS?
Best regards,
Will

Jack,
Once again I am amazed at your facts . They can hardly be doubted as facts. I guess I still have reservations but they are only mine. I always compare cost when I can and opt for a choice I feel comfortable with. I do find cost is only one element that sways my choices. The selection by cost only reminds me of the submariner wondering if the sub-safe valves were done by the lowest bidder or the pilot wondering about the last engine contract or an astronaut and so on. I guess not sharing your conclusions makes me a nay-sayer. Then again I am slow in changing much like our Republic.
Best,
Ron

I agree. That's another reason I advocate universal health care: better health outcomes. Most EU countries have significantly higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US. So does our next door neighbor, Canada.

I'm not comfortable with seeing my country being outperformed. Are you?

Heck Jack, I don't care if they give all that extra money to the doctors, nurses, therapists and other folks in the trenches. They don't have to "save" it, they have to redirect it and get everyone health care in the bargain.
But, you know the problem.
As I understand it, both Hillary and Obama have "plans" for universal health care that essentially extends the present system by requirement to "all." There is to be some penalty for not having coverage. Heck, I bet one of the "penalties" is that you can't get into many places for help.
What changes?
As you point out, the money is already there. It just needs to be redistributed and spread out. And the doctors and other professionals should be BETTER off.

Jake

So - how does life expectancy and lower infant mortality directly relate to the Health Care system - the US doesn't have the same ethnic make up or Life Styles as the ones you mentioned. If you want to make a valid comparison of health out comes you need to compare those who were treated for a similar health issue under the US System and the one you want to compare it against.

No fair! You can nitpick my facts, but I can't nitpick your facts - because you don't provide any.

The ethnic mix and life styles in developed countries vary across the board - compare Italy, say, with Iceland, or Spain with Canada or New Zealand or France (which has a higher percentage of foreign-born than we do). They have only three things in common: universal health care, lower costs and better outcomes.

obama is an overt enemy agent,hilly is a covert enemy agent and mcain is a repulsive anti gun RINO .YUUCK!What is an honest man to do?

Jack - you are parroting the WHOs facts ( I don't mean that in a bad way) I don't know much about Health Care reporting Data - I do know a little about comparing Data.

postoak, if you have better facts - if you have any facts - I'd be glad to see them.

Meanwhile, I'd say the W.H.O., The New England Journal of Medicine, The Economist and CAHI (representing the private health insurance industry), make a fairly respectable spectrum of sources. And they are all pretty much in agreement.

Ok - Canada vs. US - US has a lower mortality rate after Heart Attack treatment.

Fact- the below is from the WHO website

Problems in accuracy of records
Although the International Classification of Diseases is intended to provide a standard way of recording underlying cause of death, comparison of cause of death data over time and across countries should be undertaken with caution. Several new features and changes from ICD9 to ICD10 have great impact on the interpretation of the statistical data. The implications of these changes in ICD10 should be taken into account when making trend comparisons and estimates for causes of death. ICD10 is more detailed with about 10 000 conditions for classifying causes of death compared to around 5 100 in ICD9. The rules for selecting the underlying cause of death have been re-evaluated and sometimes changed. Accuracy in diagnosing causes of death still varies from one country to another. In addition the process of coding underlying causes of death involves some extent of misattribution or miscoding even in countries where causes are assigned by medically qualified staff. Main reasons are incorrect or systematic biases in diagnosis, incorrect or incomplete death certificates, misinterpretation of ICD rules for selection of the underlying cause, and variations in the use of coding categories for unknown and ill-defined causes.

Postak,
I love your material. We may not solve a problem but we will have given it a fine looking over.

Jack,
Since I have not reached your conclusions, I have not felt my country is being outperformed.
And the debate goes on,
Ron

The problem with a Government Controlled Health Care ( even more controlled than today) is that our history is that Guberment run programs that once you start you are stuck with them.

We need to see a few states do it right, that will a real test of the merits.

Jack in the Government Plan - how is access to services controlled (unrestricted demand) ?

Jack, the problem is that old devil in the details. You've said yourself that you don't like either Hillarycare or Obamacare. So where's the plan being proposed for the United States that you support? It ain't out there! Petition your Governor Pawlenty (who's being touted as a potential Republican VP candidate) to get behind one and tell him what you want. But it seems somewhat contradictory of you to beat the drum for universal health care, while at the same time opposing the plans being put forward by the current candidates. What you're saying there, obviously, is that there are right ways and wrong ways to do universal health care. Therefore, the concept isn't as universally good as you're touting it to be . . . or, once again, the devil is in the details.

They vary greatly from country to country. Wikipedia has an interesting comparison between plans in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. Spend some time studying, and you'll find answers to a lot of your questions. Unfortunately, most Americans go no further than hearsay and talk radio to shape their opinions.





Your first point is answered by your second. The WHO caveat is appropriate because cause of death can be subjective to some degree. But fact of death is not, so infant mortality and life expectancy data is pretty accurate.

First of all, I have never touted universal health care as "universally good." I have said that UHC plans in OECD states have lower per capita costs and better outcomes than America's private insurance industry-managed system. And I have backed that claim with facts.

My opposition to HillaryCare and ObamaCare is no contradiction whatsoever. Both proposals are based on private insurance industry management - which is keeping the fox in control of the hen house. As I pointed out before, even CAHI, a front for the private insurance industry, admits that government-run health plans cost less to administer.

Again, I have provided facts in detail, and cited my sources. Can any of the UHC naysayers do the same?

Is there a hybrid plan that would allow people to keep their current plan if they so choose, and fill in the gaps for the uninsured? Perhaps that would alleviate concerns among the skeptics about choice. In my own state of WA., there is a basic plan available for artists such as myself, but I make too much. Heck, as a veteran (but non-combat), if I could just have access to a VA hospital I would be fine with that.

Providing health care to US citizens is NOT a proper and legitimate function of the federal government. Federal interference is one of the reasons health care costs are so high. There has been talk in a few states of starting their own socialized health care plan. I think a state run plan would be a good test case for viability. At least an individual in a state with such a plan could opt out by voting with his feet.

Does Michael Moore post here? Feels like his type of facts.
bill

Peter, What source of information tells you that: "Federal interference is one of the reasons health care costs are so high."? I have never seen the slightest bit of data to support that supposition.
(I suppose you also think those nasty laws which allow doctors and hospitals to be sued are also a "reason health care costs are so high?)

Jake

Jake, if you will read my post a page or two back you can see some of the factors I think have increased the cost of health care including compliance cost. I also don't believe the federal government can efficiently run any comprehensive program. It is a Fact that as the size of an operation increases efficiency decreases. In the private sector this would equate to a small business working at a much higher profit margin than large business. In my business I frequently see profit figures in the 40% range while GE will be doing good to hit 4%. In term of government we are not looking at profit figures but cost figures. The larger the program the less efficiently it can be run equating to higher cost of operation. The only other mandatory social program our federal government has running on the scale of universal health is social security. Do you consider this a well run and successful program? I do not. The next time you have an opportunity ask a retired railroad worker about his benefeits and see if he wishes the railroads had not opted out of social security.
My viewpoints also are coming from the perspective that the constitution was a document written to secure the rights of the individual and the states and limit the power of the federal government. I guess this FACT has also been forgotten.

Really - is that a "Fact"? So the principle of 'economy of scale' has been cancelled? Not according to CAHI, a private health insurance industry organization:

"Medicare covers around 42 million individuals with one program which should provide it significant economies of scale. The private under age 65 market covers around 165 million individuals through hundreds of companies, suggesting much less ability to create economies of scale.

"The Federal government usually reports its Medicare administrative costs at about 2% of total payments under the program while private costs vary dramatically from market to market, but frequently are cited to be in the 15-20% range on average." http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf


Try comparing the adminstrative cost of Medicare to private health insurance, Peter. CAHI, the private insurance industry advocate, has done that, and even they had to come to this conclusion:

"Medicare’s actual administrative costs are 5.2 percent, when the hidden costs are included...average private sector administrative costs, about 8.9 percent – and 16.7 percent when commission, premium tax, and profit are
included. http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf

Interesting that they had to factor out commissions, taxes and profit (What? No profit?) to get their costs down to about 60 percent more than the gov't health plan. Including all costs for both plans, administering private health insurance costs over 200 percent more than administering Medicare, according to a private health insurance industry source!

I would be suprised if a state doesn't take it on, as suggested by members here. That's how it started in Canada in Saskatchewan. AMA saw it as clear poison, the CMA as pure Moscow and Pravda, and they poured everything into the province to stop it. The Saskatchewan premier who started it, a Baptist clergyman born in Scotland, was last year voted Canadian of the 20th Century.

A factor militating against US universal coverage may be a cultural difference between here and there. Our West was settled by hardy and independent old European immigrants, as yours, who wouldn't go to a doctor unless the Reaper was at the farm gate. But they came here for something better and, with inspirational leadership, recognized cooperative responsibility could work for health as well as other endeavours.

Canada's pioneer ethic evolved into a legislated system of, in effect, each one being responsible to every one for the important things that bind a society together---health, social welfare, education etc. Under a national equalization program which is a work in progress the richer provinces assist financially the weaker provinces so they may provide services to a national standard.

I won't put too fine a point on it here, but I think of it not so much as socialist, as so often implied here, but what a young country of fabulous wealth chose democratically as how they wanted their society to work, following Jesus's gospel of service and love. Every government, conservative and liberal, has strived to improve it---as the US evidences in the current debates.

Sorry Jack, but you're trying to sell snakeoil. You refuse to list the ingredients in the bottle. In this case, you have yet to get specific about WHICH EXACT PLAN you support. Would it be Canada's, Great Britain's, France's, Sweden's? How about the plan in the old Soviet Union? They had universal health care for 70-odd years; maybe still do. And it didn't seem to work all that well for them. You're saying that there are "plans" out there (not further specified) that are better than our current American system. Now I don't know too many people that don't believe our system has problems, but you're not doing much to help us solve them. And nothing you've said to this point is of any real value at all, unless you're willing to get behind A SPECIFIC PLAN. Then you need to sell that SPECIFIC plan to a politician--preferably one running for president, or at least someone who's a major player in Congress. So . . . tell us which of the plans you've reviewed in detail you like best. Tell us why it's the best of the bunch. Then tell us why you think it will work well for the United States. Finally, tell us how much it's going to cost.

As usual, Larry sets up a straw man ("A SPECIFIC PLAN") and then beats it to death - without providing any information on his part. According to Larry, I'm obligated to provide all sorts of details about something I never proposed ("A SPECIFIC PLAN"), while he provides nothing but vague generalities.

I agree with Larry that "nothing" I've posted here - the specific data on national health care costs and performance, the links to information sources - "is of any real value at all" to anyone whose mind is firmly closed and doesn't want to be confused by facts. I only hope that forum members with open minds will benefit from greater knowledge.

Sorry, Larry. I've seen your straw man arguments before. If you can contribute any legitimate facts to contradict the information I have provided and sourced, I'd be glad to discuss it. If you can contribute any worthwhile information to help us get a better understanding of the issues surrounding national health care, I'd be pleased to consider it.

Otherwise, I'll just ignore the usual spluttering from the peanut gallery.

Jack, once again you seem to want to disagree about what we bot agree on. Health insurance companies significantly increase the cost of medical care. You still have not addressed my point that the federal government was not established to be our nannies. My point about social security still stands also.
Do you really know and understand what the term 'economies of scale' means. In the private sector economies of scale reduce cost to a manufacturer or service provider increasing their ability to compete in the marketplace and hopefully increasing profits. In terms of the government ecomomies of scale, while reducing the cost of operation also decrease the tax base upon which government survives, thereby negating part of the savings if not increasing the total cost of service.
Fortunately for me I spent the body of the day bird hunting and had very little time for fact checking. The one statistic that I did find was that in the USA the infant mortality rate reported by the CDC was .68%. When I checked the WHO site their statistics were not broken down into percents but by very vague and broad parameters, not specific at all. I was hapy to see however that their nice color coded map of infant mortality had the USA the same green shade as almost all of Europe. Northern Europe and Canada were a nicer color but going by their reporting methods this could be caused by as litle as one infant death in 100,000. Peter

Peter: Thanks for raising a substantive question. Here's a substantive answer.

For 2007 infant mortality per 1,000 births:
Austria 4.5
Canada 4.6
Denmark 4.5
France 4.2
Germany 4.1
Spain 4.3
United Kingdom 5.0
United States 6.4
Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html
A more comprehensive source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

As to why the US government was established, check the preamble to the Constitution. Might not basic health care come under the requirement to "promote the general Welfare"?

Just because no one has put forth a good plan does not mean it is not needed. The problem is that the powers that be are too entrenched and are paying off everyone who will take their money.

The "plan" simply needs to provide good basic health care to all. Pharmaceutical companies will have to sell competitively to the biggest buyer in the world. Supplemental policies should be allowed. Doctors do not have to agree to take patients. But, as a practical matter, they will when everyone has nationalized coverage or they won't have many patients.

There will be more jobs in health care for providers. Doctors and other professionals should be better compensated than they are now by the insurance conglomerate.

The Country will have much better health care and it will cost less than it does now.

See, simple.

Jake

yOu guys have made up my mind for me.

I'm vOting for Osama Bama...

Jack's forgetting the culture of having children for the rent money. Not the best of health care wanted or needed!

Lowell, at least paying for the rent provides some pleasure for the baby-makers, unlike corporations paying lobbyists to deliver prime pork, paid from your pocket. The baby bonus is small change compared to the pork, if your country is similar in this respect to ours.

Jack, whenever I am asked about a constitutional interpretation my response is always this. If you were to ask James Madison, Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, what would they say. I am pretty sure they would say no to your question.
To dip a little further into a couple other questions the federal government already uses its bargaining power to set medicare rates and costs are still high.
As to the cost of malpractise the lawsuits and insurance premiums only scratch the surface of the effect. Since doctors know they are subject to be sued on a whim they will commonly order batteries of tests, ct scans and mri's even when unnecesary as an additional form of self protection. This practice can dramatically increase the cost of a visit to a physician. This is not universal, thankfully. I know doctors that are confidant enough in their ability as diagnosticians they forgo all but the necessary tests. I also know doctors who's prime concern seems to limitation of liability. After all they aren't directly paying the bill.
The numbers you showed above on infant mortality are so close that I don't believe health care quality is the difference. In this country being pregnant is about the easiest way to get free health care anyway. I would look at sociological and sosietal causes as the difference. According to the last figures from the CDC we have experienced a 66% increase in illnesses and deaths caused by methadone use alone. Maybe our
next discussion should be about US drug policy. Peter

Not so ol'chap, the social system is milked for all it's worth.
She comes off the dole, and becomes the future baby-making machine(queen bee) for the crib.
Our welfare system is the money pit and we're not getting much in the way of return for our dollars spent.

Canadian corporations with full-to-the ears profits and treasuries got billions in federal research and development grants whose effect on the country's productivity was worse than zero---it went down. We probably have different words to describe using taxes to line the pockets of CEOs and shareholders, but in Canada we call them corporate welfare bums. As for the babies, Canada is in big-time trouble if we don't get more of them---fast.

They'd say who needs help paying for a few leeches, or a barber to bleed you? Jefferson owned slaves, of course, and strongly opposed establishment of a standing army. It's hard to debate with someone whose social development stopped in the 18th century.


But not as high as privately funded health care. However, Big Pharma lobbyist$ got the new Medicare Part D to ban the gov't from bargaining with Rx drug companies - which is one reason why Americans are paying much more for American-made Rx drugs than anyone else in the world.


And the Democrats, who are heavily funded by the trial lawyers, resist any attempts at tort reform which would limit the size of malpractice awards. 'Populist' Dem John Edwards funded his campaign with millions raked off as a trial lawyer in class action suits.


Infant mortality is a commonly used indicator of health care quality. The US compares poorly with OECD nations that have universal health care. If the US, at 6.4 deaths/1000 births in 2005, had achieved the rates of Germany, Spain or France, more than 8,000 American infant deaths would have been avoided in that one year. That's a pretty significant difference!

King, This reminds me of a story. Some of our dear friends on Vancouver Island are a Frank and Lonnie, a couple in their late forties who have never had children. We were at dinner with them recently (with our 12 year old son who adores Frank, who first taught him to fish). Frank and I were discussing various things, including Canada's population (about 33 million), land mass, oil reserves and such. We were discussing Canada's very slight population growth which is still slowing and almost appears to be to the point of diminishing.
Anyway, I asked Frank why he thought Canadians were commonly not having children. I expected a long discussion.
He looked up and, with his deep voiced Canadian accent, said: "Hedonism."
I about choked on my food. I still think it is a classic one word answer.
Best Regards, Jake

I don't know whether it's a classic, Jakeroo, but it is a correct one. Regards, King

I know that our infant mortality rate is higher than some, but I also wonder why. Is it simply because we do not have universal health care? Or can it be attributed to other legitmate reasons?

I am in agreement with those that feel that ghe Federal Government has no place in the health care business. Nor do I believe in many other "welfare" type subsidies to corporations, farmers or individuals.

The Founders never promised anyone a rose garden, they simply said we would all have an equal opportunity.

The United States of America has been the most generous nation on earth, Steve, not least from opening its borders many years ago while others were closing theirs. I believe at 30 to 40 per cent, its citizens are the most-regular-church-attending country in the western world. Its generosity and social ethic is not pure altruism, nor should it be, but it knew that leadership, a beacon on the hill, is a lot more than equal opportunity.

King, someday soon, we'll all be together in the great American Socialist Union experiment.
No Maple leaf - no Stars n Stripes - just free at last si!

Wow . . . asking for "a specific plan" is a STRAWMAN? So far, Jack, all you've given us is information surrounding the "concept" of universal health care. Infant mortality higher here than in many other countries; we pay more; etc etc. All well and good. So let's say I don't own a car. I have a horse or maybe a bicycle, and you've presented data showing why a car is a better idea. Well, since I'm not a car owner (analogy to most Americans not having any experience with universal health care), showing me that a car (universal health care) is a good idea is only the first step. But what would REALLY be helpful would be if you'd tell me WHICH CAR (which universal health care plan) is best for me (this country)? Surely, Jack, if you've done all that study, you can tell us whether Austria's plan is superior to France's or Sweden's, and why. And give us the specifics.

So far, what you've done is the equivalent of telling us that a double, either sxs or OU, is superior to a pump or an auto. Well, we're non-double owners, and we're looking for specific recommendations. I don't know about others here, but I wouldn't run out and buy a double based simply on a convincing argument that it's better than a pump or auto. There are bunches of them out there, and I don't know which one to buy. HELP! Same deal with universal health care. You've already admitted it's "not universally good", and you've already told us you don't favor either Obamacare or Hillarycare. So can we now . . . please, pretty please! . . . get beyond the generalizations about why universal health care is better, and get down to the SPECIFICS of what we should look for from our politicians in a universal health care plan YOU, PERSONALLY would support. Preferably based on an example of one you think works particularly well in country X, Y, or Z. Because it would seem if we leave it to the politicians, without our being better informed . . . well, for example, we're already being offered plans by Obama and Clinton, neither of which you like. So, where's the really good deal on a car or doublegun (universal health care) we should look to, since we know from what you've told us that there are bad deals out there?

Virtually all of the universal health care plans in Europe cost less, cover more citizens and show better outcomes than America's private insurance-driven 'system'. Based on personal experience with health care in the UK and France, I'd be satisfied with either. But I'd take any EU plan over the exorbitant, inequitable, inefficient, red-tape-tangled mess we have here.

However, each nation's plan is different. For example, medical treatment in the UK is free; in France there is a nominal charge. Each plan has different options for supplemental private coverage. Each plan has different methods of funding, within different systems of government. And each is designed around the needs, national concerns, health care infrastructure, social traditions and democratic will of the public which supports it.

Problem is, you can't buy just a national health care system - you have to take the government, the culture and the country that goes with it. And you have to live there. So it is absurd to expect anyone to say which is "the best" health plan for someone else, any more than one can say which car is best for someone else, or which shotgun, or which wife, or which place to live.

Universal health plans are tremendously complex (as are our private insurance plans). Asking an individual for simple apples-to-apples comparisons is, frankly, simple minded. It took the World Health Organization whole teams of medical consultants, actuaries, accountants, statisticians, political advisers and economists sifting through mountains of data to analyze them in 2000, and they are all in a state of continual development.

But if America ever acknowledges basic health care as a citizen's right - as do all the other major nations of the earth - this nation has the skills and manpower to study the successes of countries which have been ahead of us for decades. To see which parts would work best within our system of government. And to craft a universal health care system that fits America's needs.

You can name it, Lowell. The US has been our oldest and closest friend.

"A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted." http://www.logicalfallacies.info/strawmanarguments.html

My position is that universal health care is generally better than what the US has now. And I have provided data to prove it.

You argue that my position has no value without proposing "A SPECIFIC PLAN." "A SPECIFIC PLAN" is your straw man fallacy, Larry.

BS, Jack. Both Hillary and Obama offer SPECIFIC plans (neither of which you like). You're trying to sell us on the CONCEPT of universal health care, while admitting that there are BAD universal health care plans out there--like, in your opinion, both Clinton's and Obama's. (And I doubt you'd say the one under which the Soviet Union operated for 70+ years was all that good either.) Therefore, "generally better" clearly doesn't cut it. The devil remains in the details . . . which is why you keep encountering all the universal health care skeptics.

In order to sell universal health care to the American public, it has to be demonstrated that not only is the CONCEPT superior to what we have now, but that whatever SPECIFIC PLAN is being offered us is an improvement. And the fact is, you are in partial agreement with those Americans who oppose universal health care: you too are against Hillarycare and Obamacare. To convince the skeptics, therefore, you need to go beyond the general concept and get down to a specific plan. Show them what it will give them, what it will cost them, and tell them why it's better than what we have now. As simple as that--or as complicated as that.

Very mature, Larry.

That's where your straw man fallacy falls apart - you try to refute a general proposition by demanding a "SPECIFIC PLAN" which has never been suggested. It's a flimsy tactic, Larry, usually deployed by losers in the logic game.

Another fallacy. Opposing HillaryCare and ObamaCare is not "opposing universal health care." That's like saying being against Al Qaeda puts me in "partial agreement" with Americans who oppose Islam.

I do oppose ObamaCare and HillaryCare, because both keep the rapacious US private health insurers in control. Ever wonder why health costs are driving US companies overseas? Here's what the top HMO execs were making 12 years ago:

The 10 Highest Paid HMO Executives 1996 Annual Compensation
(Exclusive of Unexercised Stock Options)

Stephen Wiggins, CEO, Oxford Health Plans, Inc. $29,061,599
Wilson Taylor, Chairman and CEO, CIGNA Corporation $11,568,410
David Snow, Executive VP, Oxford Health Plans, Inc. $10,403,451
Robert Smoler, Executive VP, Oxford Health Plans, Inc. $10,085,972
William Sullivan, President, Oxford Health Plans, Inc. $7,823,076
Joseph Sebastianelli, President, Aetna, Inc. $7,394,506
Michael Cardillo, Executive VP, Aetna, Inc. $7,069,969
Leonard Schaeffer, CEO, WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. $7,010,698
George Jochum, CEO, Mid-Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. $6,526,065
Ronald Compton, CEO, Aetna, Inc. $5,813,287
http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm

Managing health care for maximum profit is the problem, not the solution. And I have shown that government management, in the US (i.e., Medicare) as well as abroad, is more efficient and equitable.

We would be better off with most of the European single-payer, universal health care plans. If you feel a need to identify which is better, the World Health Organization Report 2000 is probably the most comprehensive indicator. Check out Annex 10, page 200: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_annex_en.pdf

France and Italy rank #1 and #2. The US ranks #37, not quite as high as Costa Rica. But hey, we're better than Slovenia! That should make you feel proud.

BTW many health care ins. and HMO companies are organized as non-profits. Because of this they can/must pass on the profits to a few officers; there is no stockholder scrutiny. Anything left over can be used for "public sevice" - they give to true charities to promote their messages that they are helping us. Once again the evils of the income tax at work.

Jack, where do you see me trying to "refute a general proposition"? All I've said--and with which, by the way, you agree--is that the "general proposition" of universal health care does not mean that each and every universal health care plan is a good one. (See, once again, your own disapproval of the Obama and Clinton plans.) So what you're trying your best to do, Jack, is to sell a "general proposition" which may well not be generally beneficial in its specific implementation. That's why I'm asking for a specific plan--because you've already admitted that simply buying into the general proposition does not automatically lead to a good universal health care plan. (Reference, once more, Obama and Clinton.)

You're offering us a poke without describing the pig concealed therein. Please describe the pig if you expect to make the sale.

As for BS, I know it when I smell it. It's a bit different from HS (substitute hog for bull), with which I'm quite familiar, living as I do within half a mile of two large hog confinements. But pretty much the same odor wafts from the nonspecific pig concealed within the poke you're touting.

Hoist by your own pétard, Larry.

You really know how to show your class, Larry! If that's the level of discourse you choose to descend to, I can see no purpose in further discussion with you. As the Irish say, "there's no point in wrestling with a pig, because you both get dirty - and the pig enjoys it!"

Jack,
I have followed your words and have watched as the discussion went from informative to its present state. I can not jump on your train at this time since all that you profess is based on your interpretation of a multitude of articales, which must be accepted as you interpret them. I have read enough of the written word and about those that have combined their talent in writing the pieces to be suspect of your interpretation. I find that even my interpretation may not be absolutely correct but foutunately as an adult I don't find the need to justify it to anyone. Good luck on your crusade to convert others. I'm off to shoot.
Best,
Ron

Ron, thank god we don't agree on everything here; that would be my notion of hell. I take a contrary view to yours. I found nothing polemical or diffused by ideology in jack's messages. He cited the evidence. The evidence wasn't cherry-picked to support his opinion of universal health care. None here faulted the evidence. Jack's presentation of evidence from the world's most distinguished sources has been a solid contribution to the debate, however we may feel either way. I thank him for it. Regards, King

Jack, you don't wish to continue the discussion because you've been backed into a corner requiring you to talk specifics rather than a "general proposition". You may not like either the Clinton or Obama universal health care proposals, but they are at least quite specific.

Imagine the following exchange in a debate:

McCain: "Senator Clinton, you support universal health care. Could you explain your plan in more detail?"

Clinton: "Senator McCain, it is well-established that universal health care is cheaper and results in a healthier population in many countries that have adopted such plans. How dare you challenge that general proposition!"

McCain: "I wasn't asking you about the general proposition, Senator Clinton. I was asking you to explain YOUR universal health care plan. I think the American voters have a right to know the details."

So do I, Jack.

On with the blinders and full speed ahead. If all else fails, insults often will stir the pot. Jake

Geez Larry, Jack presented apparent facts that indicate other western countries get better health care at lower cost than does the good ol' U.S. That's valuable information in my book, giving me pause to think maybe we shouldn't reject other countries' experience out of hand. I fail to see how not promoting a particular plan diminishes Jack's point. On the other hand, I have trouble finding a point in your insistence that the facts are without value unless he does.

Hello all, back again. This is the last week of bird season in Georgia so I have had to prioritize. I am glad to see the convesation get back to asking for specific improvements versus feel good generalities. Once again I am here to save the day with a specific course of action, although not a health plan.
This course of action starts with the implementation of a national retail sales tax. Employers no longer can deduct the cost of benefeits to employees because there are no more taxes on income or profit to be deducted from. Employer then says " I think I shall give every one of my employees a raise equivelent to the the cost of the benefeits I used to provide".
Cash in hand the employee now has the responsibility of providing for his or her own health care. Being the intelligent sort the employee seeks a high deductible plan and now has the power to negotiate with care givers because the employee has bankrolled the the difference between the cost of the new high deductible plan and their increase in salary.
Upon realizing that the Federal government has artificialy raised the cost of medical care through compliance mandates traded for grant money taken first from said employee, the employee insists that his congressman and senators let the free market rule and in addition require the severest form of tort control. Peter

Peter, Brilliant. Tort control is the answer. No one should have to be responsible for their own actions. It just ends up causing problems. Jake

Jakearoo if you had ever really looked at how malpractice suits work you would sing a different song. As is your comment is both reactionary and assanine. Peter

Peter, Thank you so much for calling me asinine. (I believe that is the proper spelling.)
By the way, I might know a bit more about malpractice than you think.
Jake

Jakearoo, my apologies. My comments were both reactionary and assanine.
I will now give some examples of how the malpractise system works, whith which I have first hand knowledge.
93 year old man is transported to hospital by ambulance. He has spent the last 12 years in a full care facility. The last 10 years he has been deaf, dumb and blind with no quality of life. Family members rarely visit. At hospital family insists every possible measure be used to preserve life. Man dies anyway. Family sues all physicians who hae seen man in previous 12 months, ambulance service, er physician, hospital and all nurses who paticipated in er. Guess who was paying for nursing home and hospital. Guess how much defense of this suit cost.
Woman is involved in fender bender near hospital entrance. She walks the 100 yards to the er entrance. She reports the accident, asks er to call police and send ambulance. The ambulance is for her so she can claim non existant injury in suit against other driver. Guess who paid for ambulance and er visit.
Woman is told in third trimester her unborn child will have cerebral palsy. Woman sues obgyn claiming the cp was caused during delivery. OBGYN loses big. Malpractise premiums skyrocket so she quits ob practise. Her partners malpractise premiums skyrocket so they quit all ob work to keep costs down. Women all over the area have to find new ob doctor. This is an all female practise. Guess who pays.
Now tell me about the fairness of malpractise law and how it effects the cost of medical care. Peter

Peter, I believe every word of it, result of an extremely litigious society and egregious court awards unlike anything else in the world. We know why it exists. Why it's tolerated is a mystery to me.

King, Jakearoo, Gunflint Charlie - thanks for the kind words. My purpose is not to convince, but simply to inform. Informed citizens will make the best decisions for the future of health care in America. Unless the uninformed continue to predominate.

If there's such a thing as open minds among the defenders of the status quo, they might find some enlightenment in this article* from Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm

*WARNING: this article describes a specific plan.

Have a friend, was head of surgery in a hospital. She stopped to save the life of a man in car accident. Saved his life. He sued her and got a settlement from her insurance. She quit. Now rides horses and enjoys life. Not so interested in saving anyone anymore.

Is there an internal contradiction here?

There is no question that our politicians--the people that make the decisions where government involvement in health care is concerned--have done very little to actually move us in the direction of universal health care. The Clintons' attempt, early on in the first Clinton Administration, fell flat on its face. And that was with the Democrats in control of the White House as well as Congress. In this election, it's once more a key issue, with both Obama and Clinton touting their plans as the best way to go.

So let's say that the American people, the majority of whom don't look at issues in any great detail (unfortunately), are sold on the general concept of universal health care--which is what Jack is promoting in this thread. (Not sure how we got here from a thread with a title leading one to believe that it had to do with the 2nd Amendment . . . maybe only very healthy people should own guns!) Come November, the choice is between either Obama or Clinton and their plans for universal health care on the one hand, and McCain on the other--whose proposals on health care are far less sweeping, more or less nibbling around the edges of the issue. If enough Americans buy into the concept that universal health care=great idea, without understanding that not all universal health care plans are good, much less great . . . we might end up electing a president who will move us in the wrong direction on health care. The devil, folks, remains in the details. And since Jack himself, who's advocating the general concept of universal health care, tells us that he likes neither Hillarycare nor Obamacare . . . well, I'm going to remain a skeptical American and look beyond that general concept before I jump on anyone's bandwagon. I know most voters probably won't do that, but I certainly wish they would. And they may wish they had, if we end up with either the Clinton or the Obama plan.

It all reminds me of a theme in the recent (and excellent) movie, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" There's a campaign for governor going on, and the incumbent isn't a very admirable fellow. His opponent is Homer Stokes, "the reform candidate". A lot of voters know they need reform--government almost always does, after all--but Stokes is none too clear about the details of his "reform" policies. And fortunately for the good citizens of the state, before the election takes place, Stokes' true qualities are revealed--and it turns out that the incumbent, feet of clay and all, is a better choice. It's an excellent parable, demonstrating why voters need to examine the details involved in the implementation of any very general concept, whether it be "reform" or "universal health care".

Jack, I don't think tort reform is in conflict with the free market. One of my examples above shows clearly how malpractise suits can interfere with the free market by reducing choice in medical care providers creating less competition. Tort reform would simply set standards for reasonable awards. In Mississippi the malpractise situation finaly got so bad that doctors were fleeing the state and they were in serious danger of having a health care crisis. The state then had to limit awards to settle things down. Civil law in this country was intended to be a way for an injured party to receive fair compensation, not hit the jackpot. Unfotunately the end user pays all costs and this system does increase the cost of medical care. If we were to approach this problem in a true free market sense we would adopt a loser pays system of civil law.
I we could eliminate the embedded cost of insurance, reduce the threat of malpractise and get government out of the doctors office our per capita expenditure on health care would be drastically reduced. I will try to find real, published data for you. Peter

I am in favor of universal health care, at least in concept. All the universal health care proposals I have seen have been very short on specifics and long on vague broad ideas. I am also in favor of universal work, self reliance, intelligent decisions on lifestyles, everyone needs to be productive or self sufficient. The thing I am against is the Government deciding what, where and how I can live more than they do all ready.

Will the Government be able to tell a fat person they have to join a gym to be covered? Tell a smoker that they have to quit to be covered? Tell a person living a risky lifestyle they have to quit that lifestyle to be covered? Tell fast food places to drop all items from the menu that tend to make us fat? Order the closing off non organic food vendors? Answer is no, no, no, no, no, no and no.

Then they will have to get cost containment some place. Tell doctors to work for 30% of their old wages. Yeah right. Tell hospitals to close off new wings with state of the art equipment. Not going to happen. How will those bonds get paid for that were used to build the wings and buy the equipment? I remember when you had to drive 80 miles to get chemo treatments. People will pitch a fit if told they can not get services convenient to their homes.

How much control are you willing to let the Government have over your life? Will they be able to tell you that after age 60 you no longer can have certain services due to your advanced age and limited return on dollars spent. For example after age 60 you no longer can get a kidney transplant. If you want and need one you have to pay out of pocket. Or after age 75 you no longer can have knee or hip replacement. Or after age 80 you no longer can have cancer treatments. These are real questions that have not been answered. The number of dollars are limited and there will have to be limits set for services at some level.

Many other national health care systems are not really free. If you think that I am kidding take a close look at how some of the Universal Health Care programs work around the world. France has a system that pays a basic 75% and the other 25% is covered by a mandatory insurance that you a required to buy by law. The Swiss system is different but when you get right down to it their tax rate is well above ours. Are you willing to pay 50%, closer to 60% when you add in all the taxes and hidden taxes and cost to live here with universal health care? Money has to come from some place.

Our government prints money and can not break even. They spend money like a drunk on a binge to curry favor and get reelected. There is no incentive to be efficient or to hold cost down to any reasonable level. Just as they buy hammers for hundred of dollars they will be buying aspirin for hundreds of dollars. When you take the inefficiencies of government, lack of real oversight or controls and the fact that every bloated government program started out as a good idea, talk of letting the government manage all the health care in this country should scare you. It is one sixth of our total economy and you are willing to let the government take total control of it.

Agriculture is a smaller part of the economy, are any of us willing to let the government run agriculture? Let them have total control. We would starve or be forced to import food like the old Soviet Union in five years. How about steel or the auto industry? Is there any industry that the Government can take over and run it better than it is being run now? Any?

Before I vote for any universal health care candidate I want specifics. Not broad visions. Nuts and bolts facts with real programs that spell out what you get and what is not covered. Until then I will not vote for any candidate who is serious about universal health care because specifics are real, concepts are not.

KY Jon, a lot of the questions you ask have already been answered here. You might find some enlightenment in this article from Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
I don't think French eating habits have suffered much under universal health care!

Go back through this thread, click on the information links. You'll discover that Americans pay more for health care per capita, and as a percentage of GDP, than the French - or anyone else in the world. A lot more. Our privately-insured health care administration costs are far higher than government-run Medicare. And our health care outcomes don't measure up to other major industrial nations with universal health care (UHC).

Most opponents of UHC don't understand how it is working successfully in countries around the world - and make no effort to inform themselves. It's easier to remain ignorant than to learn. But if America ever acknowledges basic health care as a citizen's right - as do all the other major nations of the earth - hopefully we'll be smart enough to study the successes of countries which have been ahead of us for decades. To see which parts would work best within our system of government. And to craft a universal health care system that fits America's needs.

A hundred years ago, lots of Americans didn't understand how horseless carriages worked, either - but they learned.

Selling a "general proposition" can be fairly easy, when the buyers in question don't know much about the subject at hand. But let's try another general proposition. Just like universal health care, this one is also backed up by facts and data from foreign countries:

1. Most foreign countries have stricter gun laws than the United States.
2. The homicide rate in those countries with stricter gun laws is significantly lower than in the United States.

So . . . have I successfully made the case for stricter gun laws in this country? I have a feeling that I have not, especially not to the folks that patronize doublegunshop, because they are far better versed than your average American on the subject of guns and gun laws.

Now we're back to the original subject of the thread: the right to keep and bear arms.

No, you have not made the case for stricter US gun laws, Larry, Stricter laws may contribute to lower homicides. Publics seem to believe that in Canada where the rate is steady. There are also cultural differences I have mentioned which have a bearing on how countries, states and communities organize their priorities.

I am appalled to see such ignorance posted here as "fact"! This is a 'post hoc' fallacy of the far Left, which is not supported by facts according to Guns & Ammo magazine: http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/

In contrast, the facts I have provided here on universal health care come from recognized, legitimate published sources, to which I have provided convenient links for verification.

BTW, Larry's statement was originally posted as a straight, unabashed proposition that stricter gun laws = lower gun homicide rates, without any caveats or reservations. It was only after I drew attention to this that he went back and carefully edited his 3rd paragraph to explain his way out of it! (and carefully X-ed out the "Mark as Edited" box!)

Peter and King,
The problem is the 40 year old woman who goes in for back surgery and the doctors mistakenly identify a vein as the iliolumbar instead of as the external illiac vein. The external illiac drains the entire lower leg of blood. They decide to ligate and close it because it is "in the way." They then find in post-op recovery pressures in her lower leg 3 or 4 times normal but don't do the necessary emergency surgery for 8 hours, each hoping the other will take care of the problem. Patient ends up in multiple organ failure with lifetime loss of use of her leg and extreme permanent pain syndrome. Can't even go to the bathroom without help. Will spend her life out of work and essentially bed ridden and in pain.

The problem is the woman who goes in for knee replacement surgery and when she is taken to the recovery room she is still asleep. The orthopedic surgeon has a golf tee time and wants to start the next case. So, the anesthesiologist extubates the patient and leaves her asleep. She chokes. By the time he gets back to her (and breaks her jaw trying to re-intubate her), she is brain dead from lack of oxygen. Her devoted husband is left with some nasty choices and will never have his wife.

The problem is the woman who has gastric bypass surgery and develops a small ulcer right at the anastomosis (the new connection between the stomach and intestine). She can't hold down any food. The hospital and several doctors treat her for 3 months including 9 infusions of water because she is dehydrated. They never give her any nutrition. She is so sick she is in the hospital for over two weeks. Still, no nutrition. One day, after two weeks in the hospital,she is batty. They call in the neurologists. Well, she has developed Wernicke's encephalopathy. An irreversable condition characterized by ataxia, ophthalmoplegia, confusion, and impairment of short-term memory. This condition is caused by lack of protein. It happens right there in the hospital. It could have been cured by simply giving her IV nutrition any time before it manifested. It takes months to develop. She spends the rest of her normal life in a wheelchair drooling and being fed and having her butt wiped by others. She can remember her whole past, who she is, who her family are. But, she can't carry on a coherent conversation because she has NO short term memory. Kind of like Alzheimer's disease. (Course, the good news is you can tell her the same joke over and over a hundred times. It never gets old.)

The problem is the young mother having her second child. After the birth she develops extremely high blood pressure. A well know condition called pre-eclampsia. The condition is fairly easily treated with immediate infusion of mag sulfate. But, some knuckle heads decides not to give that drug for about 8 hours. She develops full blown eclampsia and dies of multiple organ failure and brain hemorrhage. She leaves behind the new baby and his 3 year old sister and a husband who earns a modest wage with no other family to help him.

The problem is that when real malpractice occurs, it can be devastating and extremely expensive to deal with. And, for what it is worth, over 35 states have enacted "tort reform" for medical malpractice cases. It is the most restrictive area of law for a claimant/plaintiff in about half of the United States. Recoveries for death of a child or spouse or for a lifetime of debilitating pain is $250,000. That is it. Not a dime more. And, to prosecute such a case to a successful conclusion costs about $100,000. Most good lawyers can't afford take medical malpractice cases on.

There are certainly system abuses out there. There are certainly frivolous suits filed. But, eliminating responsibility for one's actions has some inequity built in as well.

And, if we are all fans of "personal responsibility" and "taking responsibility for our own actions" then that also must mean that when someone screws up, they should take responsibility for the results.

Don't you think?

Jake

Chuck, This did not happen in California. There is a "good Samaritan" law here. Very strongly written and upheld many times by the appellate courts. This case would be dismissed by the judge soon after it was filed.

Jake

Thanks, Jakearoo - there are all too many 'urban legends' about malpractice, and too many anecdotes about UHC being passed off as facts.

Ignorance, Jack? Fact? You reference an OLD study (1997) in which the author seriously cherry-picks his examples: Brazil, Cuba, Lithuania, Mexico, Russia, Trinidad and Tobago . . . please, Jack, give us a break! Which of those countries have universal health care plans you want to hold up as models? Let's try apples to apples, Jack: same countries you've SPECIFICALLY mentioned as being at the top as far as health statistics go, and/or countries where you claim "personal experience" with their system. So . . . UK, France, and Italy. And let's move ahead to 2004, the most recent year for which I can find good data on worldwide murder rates per 100,000. In 2004, the US was actually a good bit better than cited in the article: only 5.5 murders per 100,000. Compared to Jack's models of universal health care:
France: 1.64
Italy: 1.23
Scotland: 2.56
England and Wales: 1.62
Now let's move on, to the rest of Western Europe, where I'm sure Jack would agree most of the best universal health care is available. All figures are either from 2004 or the most recent year available:
Worst rate: Portugal, 1.79.
Best: Norway, 0.78.
So . . . the US murder rate is 3 times the WORST murder rate in Western Europe (except Scotland--bloody Scots!) and 7 times the LOWEST murder rate.
You can even throw in the former Iron Curtain countries. Albania is the worst, at 5.68--and the only country in Europe west of the former Soviet Union with a murder rate higher (but barely) than the US. Then you drop down to Bulgaria (3.08), down to Poland with a former Iron Curtain low of 1.64.

Jack, I certainly hope your research on universal health care is better than the piece of outdated garbage you chose to refute my demonstrably accurate statement about stricter gun laws and lower homicide rates--ESPECIALLY SO WHEN APPLIED TO THE SAME COUNTRIES YOU WISH TO HOLD UP TO US AS HEALTH CARE MODELS.

"Outdated Garbage?" Very nice Lar. Jake

Hello all, I am back with fact.
From the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. US government programs account for 45% of all health care spending but cover less than 25% of the population.
Article entitled "Why isn't Government Health Care the Answer" from the Free Market Cure. WHO study used something called "fairness in financial contribution" as an assesment factor in their global rankings, marking down countries with high per capita private or fee paying health treatment.
Harvard School of Madicine and the Canadian Institute for Health study. 31% of US health care dollarswent to administrative costs.
Cato Institute study shows that regulatory compliance costs pulic 340 Billion dollars in 2005. The biggest part of that money went to compliance with malpractise law, FDA and facilities regulation.
From an article titled "The Uninsured: Access to Medical Care" from the American College of Emergency Medicine. In 1986 the Emergency Medical Treatment Act and Active Labor Act required all hospital ER's to treat emergency patients regardless of ability to pay. This is an unfunded mandate and now over 50% of all emergency care goes unpaid. This cost is then transferred to the insured resulting in skyrocketing health insurance premiums.
From the Institute of Medicine. Between 1993 and 2003 emergency room visits increased 20% and 425 ER's closed.
I also had a chance to read about the British and Canadian plans. Two years ago, in response to much complaint, the British enacted a maximum 18 week gaurantee. This say that from the time you are referred to a specialist you will be tested and treated within 18 weeks. This may be why one of my customers sister in law died from cancer before she received her diagnosis six months after she saw her GP. Also choice in GP's is limited and choice in specialists seems not to be an option. The Canadian plan seemed to be pretty good. The only problems I saw there were limited access to specialists and specialty treatment and Canadiam facilities have not been able to keep current with technological improvements. I don't see a US system being any better.

Thanks for a very helpful and informative post, Peter! Let's look at your points one at a time:

Not at all surprising, considering that Medicare/Medicaid covers everyone over 65 (a rapidly growing cohort), plus the poor and the disabled - the populations which have the most cost-intensive health issues. The private insurers have always cherry-picked the healthiest populations. So we've really had government-run health care for years - and it works pretty well for old-timers like me. But it leaves out a lot of the folks who are paying for it.

Free market Cure is a blatantly anti-UHC website, hardly a 'source' for unbiased information.

Um - what's wrong with that? Should only the rich get optimum health care?

That's a much higher figure than I've seen elsewhere; but it certainly confirms that our health care dollars are being devoured by paperwork! I'd appreciate a link - it could be another good source for supporting UHC!

Another indicator of a broken US health care system. Again, I'd appreciate a link to the source.

An excellent article! You might have also included their conclusion: "ACEP advocates for expansion of health care coverage for the uninsured and underinsured and has taken a leadership role in building a national consensus for universal health coverage."

Again, a broken system that the American College of Emergency Medicine wants to fix by going to universal health care.

That's not bad, I had to wait that long to see a specialist about my cancer, too. Of course, it had to be an approved specialist within my insurer's 'provider network.'

Why not? Americans have done other things better. Maybe we could copy the French UHC, which allows free choice of doctors.

I think some kind of hybrid UHC plan might be the answer here in America, allowing people to keep what they have if they like it, but creating a universal pool to cover the uninsured and achieve economies of scale and increased purchasing power and efficiencies that help everyone. Or, just keep things somewhat as they are but allow the uninsured to sign up for the plan that members of Congress have (Obama's plan?). I don't know what the specific answer is, but I agree with Jack that we should be able to learn from the other major nations, all of whom have UHC, to learn what seems to work best and what doesn't, and make it work for us.

One thing is for sure. If we continue to do what we've always done, we'll continue to get what we've been getting.

It's time for change.

Jack, the WHO study is saying that the ranking the US received was not based on an accumulation of pure statistics but biased by the use of a fictional formula. The US should rank much higher based on the stats. This makes me wonder if the WHO has an agenda and can be considered an unbiased source.
I also realize that at least two of those studies were done by organizations with a definite viewpoint but they bring up good points. I am using what I found to try and show how government and the insurance industry have led us to the very unsatisfactory place we are at. Do we really want these same entities to have the right to tax us and probably perpetuate the mess?
Marklart, you bring up a point that relates to a report I read today. I believe it was the US Bureau of Trade. They are claiming that the dramatic run up in prescription costs in this country is due to the fact that countries with UHP are using their bargaining power to get drugs cheaply. The pharmaceutical companies are taking it on the chin in these countries so they charge us more to make up for it. There was even mention of trying to require these other nations to pay a form of reparations to the US.
Jack, I would give you the sources if I knew how. They are all easily available if you go to wikipedia and search for any health care topic you wish. The articles are informative and every study or statement is credited and linked directly to the source. There is a huge amount of information available without a lot of searching. Peter

Craig,
You're right. I believe it was in Oregon.

Bought my last pair of glasses today under our company's health plan. They paid for free glasses every other year up to $200.00 Had my last dental checkup last week (all was good) under my company's dental plan. We had to give up both of these (as decided by my union) as of March 1st. Still have full health insurance. Now we have to pay $70.00 per month for our health care. 100% of everything was guaranteed by our contract when I retired in May 2006. I receive a full pension every month so I shouldn't have to work again. Waiting til my SS kicks in at 62 in September of next year. Guess I am one of the lucky ones. But, everyone should have a health plan for themselves and their kids........ As far as crime is concerned, if we could take Cincinnati out and drop it in the middle of the ocean, we could down dramatically on this country's crime rate. A murder every third night and a shooting almost every day.

Jake, it's hard to disagree that the article in question is both outdated and garbage--if you actually look at it, then look at worldwide murder rate statistics. Not just cherry-picking a few select countries.

We have better health care than Slovenia but a worse murder rate. (Theirs is 1.47 per 100,000; ours is almost 4x as high.) Of the approximately 110 countries on which recent data is available, over 70 have lower murder rates than the United States. Of the 37 with higher murder rates, 9 are former Soviet republics in the aftermath of the breakup of the USSR, and most of the rest are experiencing significant political turmoil of one sort or another, or have problems with narcoterrorism. Examples would be El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Mexico, Zimbabwe, and Uganda. Not likely shining examples of universal health care either.

So maybe we ought to worry about our murder rate, which is incredibly high among what one might call (in non-PC terminology) "the civilized world" as well as (or perhaps in conjunction with) our health care crisis.

Just goes to show the results of looking at "general propositions" without focusing on the specifics.

Again, linking gun control to national murder rates is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, implying cause and effect. No such connection has been proven. And statement #2 is flatly false: "those countries with stricter gun laws" include some of the most murderous nations on earth.

On the other hand, the cause/effect connection between UHC and infant mortality is widely acknowledged in the health care field. Free PMI (Protection Maternelle et Infantile) clinics have significantly reduced infant mortality rates in France.

If anyone here truly believes that stricter gun laws reduce homicide rates, I suspect he'll find more agreement among the gun-grabbers than he will in this forum.

You can quibble about the WHO 'overall performance' criteria, but you can't avoid the facts: the US ranks below the OECD average in almost every objective health statistic except one - we have the highest cost. At the price we're paying for health care, public and private, Peter, you're right - the US should rank much higher. But we don't.

I have been following this with great interest and have decided that if we elect Hilary, we will forget all these problems. This Hilary:




Not the other one!

USA today had an interesting article, including the positions of Hillary and Obama. Its an interesting read:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-guns-cover_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Larry, I don't know why the US has such a high murder rate compared to other "civilized" countries. It is certainly true that America was formed with conflict. It is also true that we have many diffuse cultures here which maintain independent identities. But any link between murder rates and our ability to own guns is conjecture. Canada's statistics on those two issues alone would shoot down that theory.

We also have more hamburgers consumed than any other country per capita. I don't think it is linked to murder. We also have more bathrooms in our homes per capita than most of the world. I don't think that is linked to murder rates.

However, it is pretty hard to not compare the price spent on health care per capita with the fact that 40 million Americans have no coverage. The life expectancy and birth mortality issues are rather unarguably associated with health care. Wait times for procedures and appointments with health care providers seem likely to be linked to health care.

It sure seems like a discussion of specific issues should try to draw on factual information on those issues.

Regards, Jake

Jack, the facts are that comparing the United States to societies most similar to our own (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe), ALL of them have significantly lower murder rates than we do. And with few exceptions (Switzerland and Finland), there are far fewer guns per capita, and/or the gun laws are far stricter. Meanwhile, as I pointed out above, virtually all countries with higher murder rates than ours--regardless of their gun laws--are societies less like our own, and mostly experiencing some sort of political or societal unrest, either now or in the recent past. Or insurgency, or narcoterrorism. I used as my primary models the SAME countries YOU addressed, specifically, concerning their health care plans: UK, France, Italy. Apples to apples.

While guns don't kill people all on their own, they are certainly a tool of choice among murderers. And statistics clearly show that in societies most like our own, there are either fewer guns and/or tougher gun laws than we have--and FAR fewer murders.

Not that that is an argument to restrict gun ownership in this country. But it does show, clearly, that when one takes a "fair and balanced" look at statistics concerning a general proposition (unlike the unabashedly pro-gun propaganda piece you linked), it can lead one to a general conclusion that may be erroneous.

In the case of gun ownership/gun laws and universal health care, the devil remains in the details: the specifics of the particular country involved, and the particular health care plan (or gun legislation) proposed.

Jake, while people may die as a result of eating hamburgers or may slip and fall and die in the bathroom (or drown in the tub), neither hamburgers nor bathrooms are used to murder people. We're talking MURDER rate, not DEATH rate. Your analogy thus goes a bit wide of the mark.

Interesting article on the relationship between gun laws and violent crime in England: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

"The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

"Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

"Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."

Our country has always had a high level of personal violence. I'm sure lots of PhD dissertations have been written about it. Some things that are different about our country from a Canada or some of the European countries is that we have a huge problem with drugs and gangs. I've been in California this week and the LA Times had had stories every day about the expansion of the Mexican Mafia gangs into the Central Valley and across the west. The brutality is not confined to the big urban areas or cites. Many small towns across the country are afflicted with gangs. In Arkansas and western Tennessee, many of the gangs are involved with the trans-shipment of drugs up I-40 from Texas to Chicago.
Memphis has plenty of legitimate jobs, and yet the gang members and drugs are destroying the city.
In New Hampshire, which I consider home, if there is some heinous crime, it is usually caused by the various gang members that have spread from Massachusetts and are usually drug/gang related.
Anyone watched a kid play "Grand Theft Auto?" I wanted to take my nephew out to shoot a single shot 22, but got the kibosh from his parents. They had a big issue with me teaching him gun safety and the discipline of shooting well. At the same time they do not have a problem with him playing unbelievably violent and obscene video games. Crazy to me.
Until the various violent groups stop shooting/raping and robbing, I'm going to have a concealed carry permit. Some places in this country you don't need one, but in big chunks of this country, you do. I drove into my old neighborhood in Dayton, OH last year, but didn't have a pistol in the car due to the stringent gun laws in OH. Big mistake to drive by our old house. It is now officially a crack neighborhood.
I'm not supporting gun restrictions until the bad guys give theirs up and get a J-O-B.

My two cents worth.

Here's another item for anyone who imagines gun laws reduce violent crime. England's Telegraph newspaper reports on the recent rapid increase in gun violence:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml

I just got a letter today from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers saying they have endorsed Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the US.

Here's another source on the relationship between stricter gun laws and reduced gun violence:


http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1564/

The murder rate in the United States remains over 3 times greater than in England and Wales. They have a long ways to go before they catch us . . . or we have a long ways to go before we catch them.

The point is, we need to delve into SPECIFIC differences between countries rather than touting "general propositions", whether we're talking gun laws or health care. For example, without even trying very hard, I can think of a lot of reasons why health care costs in the United States are higher and life expectancy lower than in many other countries, regardless of whether there's UHC:

Higher health care costs: Comparing the US to most similar societies (Western Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan), we eat a far less healthy diet. Epidemic of childhood obesity in the US. Significant increase in the incidence of diabetes. All pretty basic. Relative to both health care costs and life expectancy: We drive cars a lot more than they do. They walk and/or ride bikes a lot more than we do, which is a much healthier lifestyle. But gasoline is cheaper here, kids can drive at a much younger age (16--or even younger in some states with school permits), and are far more likely to have a car available to them as a teenager, thus promoting a less healthy lifestyle early in one's life. Not to mention the fact that the accident rate--with resulting serious injury and death--is much higher for our teenagers than in other countries, because those foreign kids aren't driving while our kids are. So that one's a "double whammy" on us.

And of course we all know that having cars available, with back seats, leads to a higher incidence of teen pregnancy.

I'm glad to see that Mr. Brown's post back on page 24, suggesting that stricter gun laws = lower gun homicide rates, which was originally posted as a straight, unqualified proposition, has now been carefully edited (and the Mark as Edited box carefully X-ed out to conceal the fact ) in an attempt to make it appear that he wasn't really serious. Ex post facto enlightenment is always welcome!

Don't be silly, Jack. My proposition--as you well know--is no more "straight and unqualified" than is your suggesting that universal health care always has positive outcomes. Interesting that I've yet to see you mention the country that had universal health care (and universal everything else, under govt control) before any other in all your comparisons. Just how did UHC work out in the old Soviet Union anyhow? If you cherry-pick countries--as was done in the article you referenced on gun laws and murder rates--you can certainly find some with stricter gun laws than the US but higher murder rates. Likewise, I don't believe the Soviet Union ever surpassed the United States in life expectancy, even though they had UHC for a very long time. But I'll grant you that their health care was cheaper! Thus, in neither case is the "general proposition" universally true--but you can use statistics to prove it true most of the time.

Which is why I've tried to lead us to a discussion of SPECIFICS, not general propositions. And which leads me to point out that one has to look at social, economic, and cultural factors (reference the article you posted above, Jack) relative to the SPECIFIC country in question before one buys into a "general proposition" and how it may or may not apply.

If anyone can find any suggestion in my posts that universal health care "always has positive outcomes," please copy and post a quote here. I'll even promise not to sneak back and surreptitiously change what I said!

The "gun laws = lower homicide rates" proposition was unsupportable from the start - but its author defended it tenaciously until his lame, late-in-the-game "ha ha I was just kidding" line.

The causal connection between government-provided pre- and post-natal care and infant mortality is well documented and widely acknowledged in the medical field. So are the vast differences in administration cost between government-run UHC systems and America's for-profit private health industry. So are the vast differences in prescription drug costs.

And yes, the pharmaceutical companies make good profits under UHC - they just don't make as much as they do here, where their grip on the short hairs of the ill is protected by the politicians. That is why I SPECIFICALLY posted that ObamaCare and HillaryCare universal health plans would have negative outcomes.

I don't see how there could be anything other than "positive outcomes" with a universal system in the United States. Canada's system also provides a competitive advantage in world trade and productivity, this week the country paid $10 billion (in US per capita terms $100 billion) on the national debt, and has best financial management in G7. Comparing with the old Soviet Union is silly.

Canada is looking for improvement at the European systems, particularly France. Canadians often think of themselves as "muddling through" on the big issues. That's what the US is doing now, finding a way to care for all of its citizens, bless them all. If it chooses an universal system--private, public or a mix---the tactics, specifics come later with the electorate deciding whose program it will support.

It's political poison to provide specifics of substantive issues in electoral campaigns i.e. the Democratic aspirants promising to kill or renegotiate NAFTA. As main supplier of oil and gas to the US, Canada for starters could renegotiate the deal-clincher that our oil is regarded equally as US oil.

Talk of killing NAFTA is really camouflage for getting at US-Mexico labour-market problems. It's loose talk. McCain supports free trade. He knows that American multinationals who invested in Canada on the basis of free trade---most of our Oil Patch for starters---would fight opening NAFA to the bitter end.

So do Clinton and Obama. That's why campaigns don't get into specifics.

Unsupportable? Jack, glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor. EVERY country in the world, with a society relatively similar to our own--that would be, once more: Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan, all of Western Europe--has a murder rate far below our own. In fact, our murder rate is at least 3 times higher than in all those countries, and as much as 7 times higher than in some of them. That would be a 100% correlation between those countries (the SAME ONES you tout for superior universal health care) and the United States when it comes to murder rate. Much stricter gun laws . . . it'd only be about a 95% correlation, because a couple of them (Switzerland and Finland) do have relatively liberal gun laws along with a low murder rate. But the vast majority of them certainly do have stricter gun laws than we do.

Of course I'm more than willing to concede the SPECIFIC "social, economic and cultural factors" that differentiate the United States from those other countries--which is precisely why I do not apply the "general proposition" that stricter gun laws would reduce our murder rate to their level. You, however, seem far too willing to gloss over those specific factors, all the while advocating a NONSPECIFIC universal health care scheme for this country. You've told us you don't like Hillarycare or Obamacare, yet you've refused to tell us what UHC for the United States SHOULD look like--which makes Hillary and Obama look more honest than you are, because they're willing to subject SPECIFIC plans to the slings and arrows of review and criticism. Pretty hard to evaluate the worth of the poke, without knowing the specific nature of the pig within.

And one additional factor I did not mention, which also obviously has an impact on life expectancy in this country vs other countries: If we're murdering people at a rate 3 to 7 times higher than the countries against which we're being compared on the issue of life expectancy, then obviously our higher murder rate would have a negative impact, and is therefore one of those specific social/cultural factors one would have to consider when making any LEGITIMATE comparison.

King, you must not be listening to Clinton and Obama. They're hammering at each other on the SPECIFIC differences between their respective health care plans, and each is hammering on the other candidate about mischaracterization of their respective plans. If both of them (like Jack) simply said, "I'm in favor of (unspecific) universal health care, because it works in other countries!", then they wouldn't have anything to argue about on that issue. And if they were only addressing health care in a general fashion, Jack would have trouble determining which of them he likes better, instead of telling us that he doesn't support either of their plans. Likewise, if Jack were to get as specific as those two candidates have, then we'd all have something to evaluate.

As a user of the system, I don't what they're talking about, Larry. Every time they open their mouths, I've a question. What the Kansas City milkman thinks of it, the Lord only knows. Regards, King

It's a good thing John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and their associates didn't have someone like this yapping incessantly at their heels when they were trying to sell the CONCEPT of democracy in America. In 1776 they lacked a SPECIFIC PLAN, couldn't explain how it would work, certainly had no notion of the eventual cost. And they didn't even have the luxury of successful examples to emulate. Even so, what they said to that point had very 'real value.'

Of course, a lot of the naysayers to democracy held back, whining that "the CONCEPT may be okay, but the devil is in the details." Most contributed nothing to build on. Many ran away, preferring to remain subjects of an oppressive regime.

Fortunately, men who believed in the CONCEPT ignored the naysayers and worked out a lot of the details over the ensuing years. But the SPECIFIC PLAN remains imperfect - we're still working on it today. And we still can't tell you the cost, for some of it will be paid in blood by future generations.

Timid men are always afraid to move from a familiar position, regardless of its disadvantages, and demand to be spoon-fed reassurance before daring to change anything.

Adams, Jefferson et al got together, as I recall my American history, in a little gathering called the Continental Congress. They got pretty darned specific as to why they believed this country ought to separate itself from English rule. Made that pretty plain, in a document called the Declaration of Independence. A dozen or so years later, they got together again and went into even greater detail concerning American democracy, in a document called the Constitution. Each state had the opportunity to look over that document before they ratified it. They knew what powers Congress would have, what powers the president would have, what powers the judiciary would have, what powers were reserved to the states, and what had to be done to ratify the Constitution.

Only someone totally ignorant of American history would say that the founding fathers were only selling a "concept". And to paraphrase a famous line from American political history . . . Jack, I know the founding fathers from history books, and I also know--knew even before you wrote the above, in fact--that you're no Jefferson or Adams.

"Only someone totally ignorant of American history" would conflate 1776 with 1787 and imply that the Founding Fathers waited until a SPECIFIC PLAN was nailed (including how it would work and what it would cost) before trying to sell the CONCEPT of independence and democracy.

I made it quite clear that the Founding Fathers started with a CONCEPT, and began selling it in 1776 - years before a SPECIFIC PLAN could take shape. If they had been afraid to move until all of the questions were answered (and some remain unanswered to this day!), we might still be subjects of the United Kingdom.



Larry, your insistence that a CONCEPT has no value unless a SPECIFIC PLAN is defined (and costed), just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Perhaps you should sneak back to that post on page 20 and change your words - you're good at that. Heck, you're even welcome to uncheck the 'Mark as Edited' box again.

Gee Jack . . . all I did in one case was add a smiley face, I think. Didn't change the meaning of anything; just trying to add a bit of humor to your dour argument. And I note that the post immediately above says "Edited by Jack Maloney". Only a hypocrite would suggest someone else shouldn't edit when he himself does the same thing. Do as I say, not as I do . . . right, Jack? Well, that goes right along with confusing yourself with Adams and Jefferson.

As for the specifics outlined by the founding fathers, my copy of the Declaration of Independence includes over two dozen SPECIFIC reasons why the United States ought to be "free and independent". As to cost, I agree with you that the founding fathers "didn't even have the luxury of successful examples to emulate". You, on the other hand, claim to have all kinds of successful examples to emulate--which clearly removes your lame excuse not to get down to specifics, including cost.

Jack, I'll leave you to put on your powdered wig and do a poor imitation of one of the founders of our country. You've exceeded my humor quota for the day. One more post like either of the last two and I'm likely to hurt myself due to excess laughter.

Ah, Larry - you know what you did, so do I - and so do others on this forum who've been paying attention. That's all that matters, really.