Comments on: Five Fascinating Results

By: An American in France

An American in France — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:22:01 +0000

I don’t see what this guy is trying to say. I mean, yeah I get that he saying that socialized health care is bad, but what is he proposing? The current way it’s run isn’t working. I’m $14,000 in debt because of a pregnancy and I HAD insurance and I was working full time. Answer that, smarty pants.

By: John Leppard

John Leppard — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:08:18 +0000

Trevor -

The system you describe is not the McCain/Bush policy, but it is, in a sense, the American health care system. The current state of the system is not the fault of any one politician or policy, it reflects more than 70 years of public policy decisions made with the best of intentions conglomerating into one big mess. There were serious problems in American health care while Bush was still cheer leading at Yale and McCain was tied up in Hanoi. One thing they do agree with is that cost is the major issue that needs to be addressed, especially if you would like to help the “50 million” “poorest people in the country” (Note: 35% of uninsured are between 19 and 35, another 20% or so live in households making over $50,000 a year). As Sen. Obama so rightly said: “People don’t have health insurance because they don’t want it, but because they can’t afford it.” Unfortunately his thinking is a little backwards on just how to make that coverage more affordable.

Jack van Dijk -

Your comment epitomizes what I meant about the road to our current state being paved with good intentions. I agree: any ethical person should be concerned with the welfare of the less fortunate. Unfortunately that concern implies a difficult choice. Traditionally speaking, “rights” are something intangible that CANNOT be denied you, nor does your entitlement to it infringe on the rights of others. In making health care a right, where do we define the extent of that right, as to fund it we must necessarily take the money from somewhere (someone) else? How much health care is someone morally entitled to, and at what opportunity cost? Should we divert money from schools, roads, defense, scientific research? The fundamental problem is that there is a finite amount of money at our disposal, and like in everything else we do, we must make choices with it. Can we afford an open ended entitlement to health services? As our current system is going bankrupt, I’d say no. If health care really were free, demand effectively becomes infinite. And somewhere, someone will have to make a choice and cut off supply. Will it be you? What is the “morally correct” amount of health care that should be provided?

By: Jack van Dijk, Cambridge, MD, USA

Jack van Dijk, Cambridge, MD, USA — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:17:01 +0000

Oh, I forgot, America’s healtcare system is “do not get sick”.

By: Jack van Dijk, Cambridge, MD, USA

Jack van Dijk, Cambridge, MD, USA — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:16:06 +0000

Referring to the Canadian health insurance proves two things, one, those people who use the Canadian healthcare systems example cannot read or speak another language than English and two, they are too dim to realize that there are at least five excellent health care and health insurance systems already for years in use in Europe.
The principle of thinking should be different, a civilized country that claims to be the richest in the world should take care of a basic health care need for all. If you disagree with that, I invite you think (for yourself) and decide if you really belong in a church, synagoge, mosque etc.
Yes, I have personally experience with the health care and health insurance systems in The Netherlands and Germany and yes they are excellent and yes they make mistakes.

By: Trevor Eve

Trevor Eve — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 01:29:49 +0000

I know, why not have a health care system that excludes the 50 million most ppor people in the country. Leaving those that can afford to choose from a variety of ineffective treatments, whilst pretending this is all done in a free market. That’ll keep costs down.

Oh, oops, that’s called the McCain/Bush health policy…

By: Bill Dwyer

Bill Dwyer — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:42:46 +0000

Point #1 is irrelevant to a policy discussion in this country. What matters is that in THIS country, we are terrible at controlling costs. We need to be open to all options. In fact, almost every point above is misleading or irrelevant to our current situation.

By: ian

ian — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:49:59 +0000

So, you are you going to fix the shitty health care system then smarty mcgee?

I see a lot of talk, but no solutions.

By: Jonathan Neufeld, PhD

Jonathan Neufeld, PhD — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:44:59 +0000

The “bottom line” given doesn’t follow from the evidence presented. I suppose if you take the “may be” part really seriously you can argue that the statement is true, but then so is every other plausible conclusion.

By: C. F. Zimmerman

C. F. Zimmerman — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:40:23 +0000

Just give everyone Medicare type coverage (using the existing system) and let the health savings accounts take care of the rest of the problems). The private and subsidized worlds could help each other. I have been a private health care provider for 35 years. Socialized medicine is not the same as national health insurance. For every horror story you can find about nationalized health insurance their are more with our system. If we stopped paying for our elected officials insurance you would see a solution.

By: Roger Beauchamp

Roger Beauchamp — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:32:56 +0000

When sorting out or analyzing garbage, what is one left with?