yada
I hope you have mental health coverage, considering your obsession with Governor Walker.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/stat...

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/stat...

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/stat...

On Healthcare, this one I agree with the republicans and the comment in sundays(15th) paper, your view. Why should all of these people get free healthcare, free screenings, like mammograms? I pay fully for my healthcare. I can not get those screenings, unless I pay. Why should my tax dollars pay for them and I can not get? By the way, I am a Democrat. I do not think they should have birth control covered for free, unless for medical reasons. Preventive is not in my healthcare plan, but if I get cancer, then I get covered. So, I go without. So should they. To me, servicemen/women should get free coverage.

Does it make sense that millions of people are without healthcare benefits? We are all paying for our representatives and their families to be covered for the rest of their lives. No worries for them, but many for us. And the funny thing is that it is our money which we could be using to take care of ourselves and our families, yet we are taking care of them.

I am sick and tired of our representatives getting the cream of the crop for themselves and their families while they make decisions of what we are entitled to. Our representatives should have the same healthcare and benefits that they dole out to the US citizens.

Right!

@dkush: Without reading all the now 400(!!) comments...you are striking at the heart of the problem. I don't care if you are Dem/Rep or Lib/Con or white/black/purple... what the heck ever!!!! I've said this before and I'll say it again. If our servants in DC want us to have universal ANYTHING...then universal means universal, and that includes their sorry butts too. If we have to wait in line, then guess what...SO DO THEY. If an old fart "retired" (from what) senator needs a heart transplant, then get in line. If a former president needs a colonoscopy, get in line. If any random bureaucrat, appointee, aide, counsel or spouse of same has a sniffle, then get in line. Absolutely no cuts in the line! The homeless person who falls on the subway gets the same care as Barney Frank or George W. Bush. All are equal! "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Right?!?!?!?!?

To all the politicians that are naysayers to universal healthcare, why don't you all give up your cadillac healthcare that we pay for you and your family? You should all have the same kind of healthcare we have or do not have. Yes, I believe we should have medical care, but I also think that there should be a huge overhaul of the one that is being thrown at us now. If we are all required to have the healthcare, knock out the insurance companies and put caps on what procedures cost, so it will be affordable for all. No wonder alot of people are going out of country for medical procedures. It's can be aprox 1/4 to 1/3 the cost that we pay here for medical treatment or prescriptions.

Ezoner said, "I love it when lefties want to use data to support hypothesis instead of just using common sense."

And what about those on the right and in the middle? Do you love that equally as much? Maybe a bit more? Maybe a bit less?

I find it interesting that a person who professes to so distrust data without being able to question the author would then rely on what they "know" without understanding exactly how they "know" it or how, and even if, it can be justified (common sense). I'm sure FOTH is jumping out of his skin to discuss epistemological particularism with you.

Poo -- I would agree with that analysis that 100% of people die and that could certainly be extended to living organisms, but then again, your conclusions are conmmonsensical (not sure thats a word).

I love it when lefties want to use data to support hypothesis instead of just using common sense.

FOTH said, "My assertion stands. Rights are neither created nor granted."

I have never disagreed with the statement that unalienable/natural rights are neither ceased or created. I have repeatedly said that I do not believe there are natural(unalienable) rights. I do believe there are legal rights and these rights are created by man (legislative process, judicial process, decree, etc.). Legal rights are created and they can cease. Legal rights are not natural rights. In the context of this article, about healthcare, I argued that access to healthcare should be a legal right. I have never suggested that healthcare is a natural right (something I believe does not exist).

You go on to say, "Just one more point... consider what sort of person would try to convince you that human rights hinge on spelling."

I never argued that human rights hinge on spelling. I ask you to show where I tried hinging "human rights" (a phrase I have never used in this discussion) or any other kind of rights on a spelling error! I was only correcting an error you made, and many others make, in confusing the words unalienable and inalienable. Never did I use that misspelling to further an argument. It is really disingenuous of you to make such a statement.

You ended with, "[Disingenuous arguments, false allegations and intentionally misleading comments have been, are now and will be ignored.]"

"Disingenuous arguments, false allegations and intentionally misleading comments." That's an excellent summary of your last comment. I had respected your ability to maintain a philosophical integrity throughout prior discussions. You've compromised that integrity, and my respect for it, with the deliberate and mischievous characterization of my comments.

Correction: My Mar 27th 10:19 spelling error in reference to the Founding Documents is duly noted. Please correct, with apologies to all, my error of "i" in "inalienable" to become "u", unalienable". (According to Webster and Roget, the proper word in this context would be "inalienable".)

My assertion stands. Rights are neither created nor granted.

Just one more point... consider what sort of person would try to convince you that human rights hinge on spelling.

[Disingenuous arguments, false allegations and intentionally misleading comments have been, are now and will be ignored.]

http://gazettextra.com/photos/2012/mar/2...

I've carefully analyzed 9 recent medical studies and 23 sets of actuarial data and have concluded that, "100% of all living Americans will eventually die."

RAF/Ezoner, please feel free to criticize my findings.

Now I just recently had surgery and I paid everything out of my own pocket. I don’t have insurance because I can’t afford it because the cost of health insurance so high I paid for it out of my own pocket. Yes it was expensive I paid for the surgery the medications I needed and the visits to the doctor’s office. Now do we need Obama care that is a matter of your own opinion? What needs to happen and it won’t is health insurance needs to come down as well as what doctors charge for health care. Until this happens will continue to have this problem.

In the end, my issue with the health care bill is that it was written largely by big Pharma and Insurance companies. They got nearly everything they wanted, so as much as we need a rational and humane healthcare system, what I fear this bill is mainly full of is corporate welfare and will have little effect on the people that need it most.

Of course, the Repubs should be thrilled that corporate healthcare/pharma had their hands all over this bill (as they do all of them), but since they can't back down from the ideological platforms, they have to tow the part line.
My guess is that the Supreme Court will probably strike down the law as it currently is. I'm not sure if that is good or bad anymore. My wife changed employers and our premium went from $90 a month to $450. Hard to budget for that.

So all studies that are done are biased? And you opinions about things are not? At least studies and data collector sets are based in some sort of numerical fact, as to your arguments which are almost always based on your hypothesis and ideologies mainly made in very generalized manners. SO I have to side with studies and statistics in most cases over emotion and ideology.
Is it true what I am reading that the individual mandate in Health care law was born at the Heritage foundation? To combat Hillary care which focused on employers?

The policy was originally included in many Republican proposals including the proposals during the Clinton administration. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where “government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.”

More recently, the Heritage Foundation continued to support the proposal under the Massachusetts health care reform effort passed into law while Mitt Romney was governor.

Basically none -- nearly all are biased by pre-disposed assumptions. There are some true reseach studies by firms I have worked for where I was involved in the data collection, but those are purely technical in nature. The pre-disposition and desire to reach desired outcomes has poisoned most reports. So we are left to trust only those which we can discuss with authors, basically most are biased, whether political, technical, medical, social -- nearly all.

Ezoner said, "Poo -- I do not trust studies and data, you would need to read and ask the authors questions regarding the data set itself and the inclusion or exclusion of certain data points."

I see. I certainly agree it's a good idea to read studies and data before you trust them. It's probably also a good idea to read studies and data before you distrust or discredit them.

Do you care to share with us a list of the studies and data that you have been able to read and then question the authors on?

FOTH said, "You and I both know why and when you found it necessary to become oppositional. We're done here."

If presenting an argument is oppositional then, yes, I've not only just become oppositional, but I have been oppositional. If you wish to no longer argue your position (in opposition to others) and choose to leave the discussion you can do so without leaving under false pretense.

FOTH said, "In the context of those documents, the term Inalienable Right has a very specific meaning."

FOTH, the term used in the Declaration of Independence is UNalienable Rights, not INalienable rights. There is a huge difference as can be seen in the below definitions.

INALIENABLE RIGHTS are rights which CAN be sold, surrendered or transferred with the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

UNALIENABLE: "incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523.

I also find it interesting that you would exclude the text just prior to that term that says, "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Seriously, are you suggesting to us now that you believe we have been endowed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by our Creator? Who is our Creator, FOTH? An imaginary sky god?

You went on to say, "I don't know how others like Superdave or RAF came to understand the origin of these rights but we all agree that Constitutional Rights cannot be construed to include fabricated "rights", such as a fabricated right to healthcare."

Every right in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a fabricated right! They are legal rights, not natural or unalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator. If you read closely enough, you see that the Declaration stated, "certain unalienable Rights." CERTAIN being the keyword for this point. The Declaration is simply a Declaration of Independence. Rights (LEGAL RIGHTS and not UNALIENABLE or NATURAL RIGHTS) are granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, by statute and other legislative and judicial processes. Even if you believe that a Creator has endowed you with unalienable rights, no NATURAL or UNALIENABLE rights are granted by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

You end with, "More importantly, we understand why that could not even be possible without destroying the liberties that our Founding Documents serve to protect."

That's an absolute joke! The founding documents clearly stated THREE unalienable rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All rights CREATED by the founding documents are LEGAL RIGHTS and the founding documents indeed encouraged us to add more LEGAL RIGHTS by way of the provision for amendment, legislative and judicial process.

Poobah: You and I both know why and when you found it necessary to become oppositional. We're done here.

Our country's Founding Documents were drafted to protect individual liberty from tyranny. In the context of those documents, the term Inalienable Right has a very specific meaning. I don't know how others like Superdave or RAF came to understand the origin of these rights but we all agree that Constitutional Rights cannot be construed to include fabricated "rights", such as a fabricated right to healthcare. More importantly, we understand why that could not even be possible without destroying the liberties that our Founding Documents serve to protect.

Poo -- I do not trust studies and data, you would need to read and ask the authors questions regarding the data set itself and the inclusion or exclusion of certain data points. You can take any data set and through inclusion or exclusion of criteria, make a conclusion outside the data, then use the data to prove your conclusion. This is what has been done in many instances, from drug testing to global warming. You include or exclude data based upon the desired results and therefore the validity of all data comes into question. Most of all -- I do not trust people with no real world experience, so as soon as I see a pure academic as an author, I immediately negate the results as most academics start out with a hypothesis and then seek to prove the hypothesis using data that can be manipulated.

I suspect the theme song from the twilight zone is playing near poo's keyboard.

FOTH, rights most certainly do provide access to products or services. Remember, as I've previously stated, I am not talking about natural rights. Property rights are just one form of legal rights that provide for access to products. Rights to legal representation provide access to services. The list goes on and on. I've never argued that healthcare is a natural right. I've never argued that there are natural rights nor do I believe they exist.

FOTH, maybe you should rename Liberty Island 1.0 to Free Will Indeterminist Island. That is, if you can. :-)

...or has rightfully acquired from another by way of mutually voluntary exchange.

Poobah: A right NEVER involves access to a product or service, unless we are talking about ones own right of access to a product or service of ones own creation.

FOTH said, "The problem lies in the statement itself being loaded because a right is not something that can be delivered."

The statement wasn't loaded and I'm disappointed you jumped to that conclusion. We have a misunderstanding, that's all. If a right involves access to a product or service, the failure to access that product or service (which in many cases such as healthcare means the failure of that service or product to be delivered by qualified individuals) does not mean the right has ceased to exist.

Poobah: I have been hanging back to respect the ongoing discussion between you and RAF but all things have their limits...

To coin an equivalent, I presume you meant that an inability to deliver milk does not negate the existence of milk. Correct? The problem lies in the statement itself being loaded because a right is not something that can be delivered.

On Liberty Island 1.0, society does not exist. Not even as an abstract concept. It isn't Castaway Island, where Tom Hanks lives totally isolated from advanced civilization. The entire purpose of LI1 is to serve as hypothetical laboratory to observe and understand the essential nature of the individual, the meaning of individual liberty and, the rational foundation of individual rights as intrinsic and inalienable qualities of personhood.

RAF said, "I raised a huge question over one of the authors of the data."

You took objection to the fact that one of the authors was economic spokesperson for a Presidential campaign. You ignore his many years as a professor of economics and his outstanding reputation amongst his peers. If anything, your objections serve only to call into question your own credibility. We're still waiting for you to cite academic complaints with the data used, and the compilation and presentation of that data, in the study I cited.

RAF said, "So poo who exactly were you talking about when you said deliver a right if it wasn't from another? If you really didn't mean an external delivered right to a person what did you mean?"

I said, "I never said what you've just attributed to me. But if you provide the quote of what I actually did say, I'd be happy to try to help you clear up your confusion."

RAF replies with a hypothetical response to FOTH I had made that said, ""The inability to deliver a "right" does not negate the existence of that "right.""

That does not at all say, "deliver a right if it wasn't from another." I gave you two chances to address this and you failed both times. We can only conclude you are unable to do it and will drop it.

"I note that you failed in your comment to address the question I had posed to you on your inaccurate quotation of my previous statements."
-
Yes I witnessed you trying to back away from the remarks you did make. I thought your peddling was all that was needed. Of course if you want to keep digging that hole please continue.

"Which brings us to the academic report I cited. If you can find anything that calls into question the data used in the study (which was obtained from US government sources), or the compilation and presentation of it"
-
I raised a huge question over one of the authors of the data. A person with known and persistant political motivations.

RAF said, " I could post links to reports with opposite views and your first objection would be the source..."

Oh, you know you could because you have. Right here in this discussion you have. One of your favorite "sources" seems to be The Fraser Institute. You've cited them at least twice. They are the organization that sponsor conferences to raise suspicions about the link between tobacco use and cancer. Even the tobacco companies acknowledge the link...

Which brings us to the academic report I cited. If you can find anything that calls into question the data used in the study (which was obtained from US government sources), or the compilation and presentation of it, please let us know. I'm sure you'll be digging away like a young kid who just rolled in a patch of poison ivy.

I note that you failed in your comment to address the question I had posed to you on your inaccurate quotation of my previous statements.

Just because a report was written doesn't mean it has credibility. I could post links to reports with opposite views and your first objection would be the source, so in that vein let’s look at this source. Robert Pollin is an economist and activist. He is politically active and was working part of a failed campaign when Gov Brown ran for president. He penned a paper that claimed in 2010 that with Obama's then stimulus, including tweaks he wanted would create 18 million jobs. Taking his history of the above and his writings on living wage his current report is not worth any more than his last ones.

Ezoner said, "Poo -- ok -- lets assume for a minute that your numbers are true -- They are not of course, but lets assume so. [...] So your numbers are a complete falsehood."

I've cited a very comprehensive, scholarly study for you by Robert Pollin (a Professor of Economics) and Heidi Garrett-Peltier (a Research Fellow) of the Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute with the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. You (whose economic credentials I am not familiar with) offhandedly reject the study without citing ANY evidence; apparently based on nothing but your own conjecture. I am not going to address your comment until you cite documentation that invalidates the study I have cited and verifies every piece of conjecture you have just stated.

Poo -- ok -- lets assume for a minute that your numbers are true -- They are not of course, but lets assume so. The jobs you would remove from defense programs would include a lawger number of higher paying jobs or high technology jobs to replace them with lower paying, form handling say healthcare jobs.

I would take exception to any claim that green jobs even exist, much less that there has been any significant increase, that simply is a falsehood, based upon the definition of a gren job.

The reality is that with military industry jobs, a great number are union manufacturing, advanced technology, that lead to new products later used in the private sector. This by-product will be greatly reduced. The myths that you throw out are simply numbers that once investigated and the definitions are shown, show a pure service industry that leads to no technological advantage in the future and provides no path to advancement. The alternative energy and green energy movement is a total bust and until a true energy replacement is developed the fact remains that wind and solar are expensive and expend more energy to develop and manufacture the products than they will ever produce.

So your numbers are a complete falsehood.

Ezoner, you actually just said MY proposal of defense spending cuts makes no sense? Your scenario on defense spending cuts and how it will impact employment is absolutely mythical. The number of misinformed and ill-informed comments I see from people regarding "defense" spending never ceases to amaze me. You've just added to the list.

I refer you to any of several scholarly studies to dispel the myths you've just stated about how cutting "defense" spending would result impact employment. But, for starters, let's read from, :THE U.S. EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS OF MILITARY AND DOMESTIC SPENDING PRIORITIES: AN UPDATED ANALYSIS" by Robert Pollin & Heidi Garrett-Peltier [ http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/... ]

You may refer to Figure 1 if you're a visual kind of guy, or Table 1 if you're not. For each $1 billion of spending in various sectors, the following number of jobs are created:

MILITARY:11,600

Tax cuts for personal consumption: 14,800

Clean energy: 17,100

HEALTH CARE: 19,600

Education: 29,100

Think about those numbers! Just moving $300 billion of the $700 billion budget on defense spending to healthcare spending would CREATE an additional 2,400,000 jobs (19,600 - 11,600) X 300.

Move another $100 billion from defense spending into education and CREATE an additional 1,750,000 jobs (26,100 - 11,600) X 100.

Move $100 billion from defense spending into clean energy and CREATE an additional 550,000 jobs (17,100 - 11,600) X 100.

So, by moving $500 billion of defense spending into healthcare, education and clean energy we've just CREATED an ADDITIONAL 4,700,000 jobs! Why isn't this being done? Because the ultra-wealthy economic elitists who control Congress don't want it to happen. They make more money in sectors where the employee costs are the least -- defense spending.

Any other mythical observations you care to share with us about defense spending cuts?

Poobah -- you make no sense. You want to elminate paying jobs that provide benefits to millions of people in the defense industry to replace that with entitlements for non-working or supposedly under-employed people. SOmehow the math doesnt wor. Where are the jobs to replace the now out of work defense industry jobs that you are so eager to get rid of?

The reality is that these people that work in the defense industry , that will now be out of work, pay taxes etc... that cover the entitlement program costs we have today and basically cover the unemployed when they need care.

FOTH, that was for RAF.

lp34416: It isn't "OK". Such people do not clearly understand the concept of liberty.

Poobah: Are you talking to me? I'm not certain. It sounds as if you are asking either RAF or me to clarify and/or paraphrase your previous statement. Is this...

That does not at all say,
"deliver a right if it wasn't
from another." Want to try
again? I'll give you one more
try.

...paragraph you wrote asking someone else to clarify and/or expound on this...

""The inability to deliver a
"right" does not negate the
existence of that "right.""

...prior statement you made?

why is is "too big of a government" on issues liberals want but it is ok for government to stick their noses in issues conservatives want?

vatoloco asked, "Who is going to carry the cross for those who do not have the ability to pay?"

The same people who are now carrying the cross for $550 billion of unnecessary annual military spending and the savings by eliminating private insurance companies from our universal, single-payer healthcare system. I've gone over this in detail in this and other articles.

You're partially right about our education system. It is modeled quite similarly to our healthcare system. A kludge of local, state and federal programs. No wonder neither works as well as they could.

RAF said, "So poo who exactly were you talking about when you said deliver a right if it wasn't from another? If you really didn't mean an external delivered right to a person what did you mean?"

I said, "I never said what you've just attributed to me. But if you provide the quote of what I actually did say, I'd be happy to try to help you clear up your confusion."

RAF replies with a hypothetical response to FOTH I had made that said, ""The inability to deliver a "right" does not negate the existence of that "right.""

That does not at all say, "deliver a right if it wasn't from another." Want to try again? I'll give you one more try.

The exchange here reminds me of the Teenage Daughter Paradox: If they didn't put up such a fuss trying to avoid endless drawn-out conversations, the actual conversations would be over in just a few seconds.

Just stopping by to apologize to RAF and Poobah for any problems caused by my failure to respond. Generally speaking, you should never infer anything from that. Tomorrow, I'll drone on and on and on about all of the reasons I fail to answer questions on GazetteXtra, OK? In this case, I simply don't grasp the point of contention. Maybe you're BOTH wrong. How's that for tactful diplomacy? Have a nice evening! :-)

" The inability to deliver a "right" does not negate the existence of that "right.""
-

RAF said, "So poo who exactly were you talking about when you said deliver a right if it wasn't from another? If you really didn't mean an external delivered right to a person what did you mean?"

I never said what you've just attributed to me. But if you provide the quote of what I actually did say, I'd be happy to try to help you clear up your confusion.

So poo who exactly were you talking about when you said deliver a right if it wasn't from another? If you really didn't mean an external delivered right to a person what did you mean?

RAF said, "It wasn't his words that declared rights need to be delivered by others, they were yours, and I responded to that."

I'm rather enjoying this debate between RAF and RAF.

The only place I've seen a suggestion of the requirement of "others" was in YOUR concept that stated, 'Any perceived "right" that requires other to provide a service or action is an entitlement not a right; only a spurious right.'

That's your concept. Those are your words. They are not my words. They are not FOTH's words. You were responding to, and indeed debating with, yourself again.

As FOTH already provided his opinions and views are his own. It wasn't his words that declared rights need to be delivered by others, they were yours, and I responded to that. Simply put any perceived right that takes action by others is not a right.

RAF said, "The concept, as well as my phrasing, is very clear unless you don't agree with it."

The concept, as well as your phrasing, is very clear whether you agree with it or not. That's the problem. You must feel quite honored with FOTH's equivocation of the"imperfection" of your concept with the imperfect concepts of our founding fathers.

FOTH said, "The imperfection with which any fallible human (founding fathers, etc) interprets and then extrapolates an axiom does not necessarily invalidate the truth of said axiom. "

I previously said, "I will readily admit that I can only communicate information and can not convey understanding, however the inability to convey understanding does not in any way impugn the information that I was communicating."

My, if those aren't eerily similar statements.

You'll note I didn't make a presumption that you agreed with the concept RAF espoused. In fact, given the conflict the concept created with natural rights, I did just the opposite and had asked you to confirm that you did not agree with the concept RAF put forth. I have a good idea why you didn't directly respond to that question.

Poobah: LOL By now you should know to never presume that FOTH agrees with anyone in particular. The imperfection with which any fallible human (founding fathers, etc) interprets and then extrapolates an axiom does not necessarily invalidate the truth of said axiom. People make mistakes. Here's a terse summary, then I need to go for today.

As you will (or I hope you should) imagine, there is a rational basis for Fothian epistemology. There is rational foundation for the axiom of self-ownership and the inalienable rights therefrom. Yes, including a woman's right to her own body. (No rational conflict there.) The foundation for this is no less rational than for any other observable quality of reality. In other words, it's not merely an opinion. (Yes, I do have plenty of those, too, but I try to remain cognizant of the distinction and do appreciate others pointing out when I go astray in that regard.) In other words, I have hard evidence.

You can find it yourself by contemplating my island with only one (1) human inhabitant and, in the role of scientific observer, log anything our lone inhabitant COULD possibly experience. More importantly, and with regard to your own existing personal beliefs, make special note of that which our inhabitant could NOT possibly experience because no other human exists, even hypothetically. (Yes, a pregnant woman would be a singular inhabitant.)

Shall I assume we agree vis-a-vis reality and truth? :-)

The concept, as well as my phrasing, is very clear unless you don't agree with it.

RAF said, "Again what you skip past is the willfulness and freedom involved in these actions. Neither was forced or coerced, just like parenthood wasn't."

Well, you see the thing is, I've read and re-read your concept of "service or action required of others" and no where does it mention wilfulness, freedom, force or coercion.

'Any perceived "right" that requires other to provide a service or action is an entitlement not a right; only a spurious right.'

Maybe you can help me out and point out where wilfulness, freedom, force or coercion appear in your concept. Or do you want to amend your concept now to exclude motherhood? And well drillers? And plumbers? You're catching on.

The logical conclusion of your analogy is the well driller and plumber that provided water to your home, needed to sustain your living, changes your right to life from natural to spurious since it required their action.

Again what you skip past is the willfulness and freedom involved in these actions. Neither was forced or coerced, just like parenthood wasn't. These actions by others are part/function of our society not a requirement by government neither is it a right.

RAF, I will stipulate for the sake of argument that, "Life occurs before birth, not after." That point is now not the issue.

Regardless when life starts, regardless what choices a mother or father makes, regardless of whether it was by choice or not, regardless if the requirement was imposed or not, your mother carried you in her body and gave you birth. That was a service and an action that was required.

Just minutes earlier you said, 'Any perceived "right" that requires other to provide a service or action is an entitlement not a right; only a spurious right.' Applying the concept that you espoused just minutes earlier makes your life an entitlement...a spurious right and not a natural right.

FOTH, I didn't say healthcare is a natural right. You'll note I put the word "right" within quotes when replying to you. I was using the word "right" exactly in the same way you were when you quoted it for the sake of argument.

I don't believe you genuinely agree with RAF's "service and action of others" concept to differentiate a natural right from a spurious right. To do so would be to deny that life is a natural right.

If you truly do believe in the "service and action of others" concept that RAF has espoused, then I would ask the same question of you that I have asked of RAF, and that is: Are you arguing that life itself is not a natural right? If life starts at conception, then the service and action of your mother, carrying you for nine months and giving birth to you, made your life a spurious right...an entitlement according to the "service or action of others" concept.

Life occurs before birth, not after. If you want to contend there is no birth without a mothers body that would be fair. But this comes as a choice and not something the new life imposed onto the parents. You appear to have an issue with the term spurious right. It is fitting to your earlier comments but doesn't fit with a child v mother relationship. Life has already happened, paternal actions do continue to happen to ensure the child grows, as is the case for all other mammals. The presumption that continuing life to birth and beyond changes the right of life from a natural to a spurious right is nonsensical.

This is the opposite of your earlier contention that mandatory servicing of healthcare to attempt to sustain a mortal life somehow falls under the same clause falls apart as soon as a mandated action is required by others with no regards to will.

Simple freedom vs non-freedom.

Poobah: With all due respect, both your process and conclusion are illogical. Can you support it with a description of how a universal human "right" to healthcare would manifest on my two-person island? (To make this even more interesting, let's say my ill person happens to be a homophobic, misogynistic, bible-thumping man who is dying from decades of moonshine and cigarettes, and my MD happens to be a lesbian.)

RAF's 4:22 summarized it well enough. Not only is healthcare not a "right" but it couldn't possibly BE a right. One person's presumed "right" to the life of another is called "slavery". Lacking any sort of rational foundation, it is no different than any other fabricated belief. Even some religious beliefs have more rational foundation. As both you and I (correctly, I might add) place the entire burden of proof on those who believe in God, the burden of proof for this belief is entirely on you.

[Incidentally, never take any of this personally. My intensity is always for the idea, not its conduit. Should it ever seem that I am too harsh here, simply imagine me in person without benefit of a text editor and a "Preview revised comment" button. :-)

In any event, for me to proceed we need to agree on two axioms: 1) Objective reality exists. 2) Truth is an absolute. Otherwise, I'm out. ]

RAF, are you arguing that life itself is not a natural right? If life starts at conception, then the service and action of your mother, carrying you for nine months and giving birth to you, made your life a spurious right...an entitlement according to the "service or action of others" concept.

Nothing the mother did caused life. Her action as well as her partner provided the conditions for it to occur. Her choice to carry to full term occurred after life was created; this happens despite government and others not because of.

RAF, that quote is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Are you arguing that life itself is not a natural right? If life starts at conception, then the service and action of your mother, carrying you for nine months and giving birth to you, made your life a spurious right...an entitlement according to the "service or action of others" concept.

The constitution does not give life nor does not guarantee extension of life. The perception that this clause entitles you or anyone to have actions performed by others is indeed a spurious right.

RAF said, "Any perceived "right" that requires other to provide a service or action is an entitlement not a right; only a spurious right."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Applying the above test of "service and action of others" to the "unalienable" right of life, if the service or action of another, even if voluntary, is required to sustain or save that life, life then becomes an entitlement; a spurious right.

I would have to agree with RAF on this one, and it's a great rule of thumb. If any perceived right that you feel you have requires someone else to provide something to/for you, or pay someone else to do so, it is not a right. Otherwise I would like the right to a new boat and an SUV to pull it. And free fuel!
Btw, the term "entitlement" is also often misunderstood. The word as used by politicians refers to a government obligation, so the common meaning is not applicable.

RAF said, "Any perceived "right" that requires other to provide a service or action is an entitlement not a right; only a spurious right."

Applying that concept, when the pursuit of a natural right requires the service or action of another, even if voluntarily, that right is then no longer a natural right; it then becomes a spurious right.

Any perceived "right" that requires other to provide a service or action is an entitlement not a right; only a spurious right.

FOTH, I was happy to see your reply, but was taken aback by your first paragraph and wondered why you had started a new topic. If you would like to debate whether mathematics is an exact science, I'd love to do that. In fact, I'd love to debate whether mathematics is a science at all (Karl Popper et al). But, for the sake of argument, I will stipulate mathematics is a science (albeit not exact or hard). But, I would suggest we stay focused on the philosophical (not mathematical) construct of self-ownership.

Individual responsibility is a concept that has been well established. Recently, political groups have hijacked the concept and turned it into a rhetorical device. The legal and moral responsibilities that comprise individual responsibility are not my concepts. And they are not the rhetorical devices of political groups. You are suggesting that my inability to convey understanding of a concept between myself and another person impugns the concept itself. I will readily admit that I can only communicate information and can not convey understanding, however the inability to convey understanding does not in any way impugn the information that I was communicating.

Thank you for providing another example for my argument yesterday on the human "choice system" and state machines. I was very happy with your ability, or proclaimed ability, to use priori when you said, "We don’t need the opinions or testimony of anyone else to explore the foundations of our principles, only our own selves and our individual abilities to think rationally." Unfortunately, few people are capable of exploration without posteriori creeping in to their decision making process.

The inability to deliver a "right" does not negate the existence of that "right." Because we have a singular failure to deliver on rights does not mean that those rights have universally ceased to exist. If you believe otherwise, there are then no rights in existence and you have eliminated the possibility of self-ownership or any other construct built on natural or legal rights. Both of those people on FOTH Island still have the same and equal right as inhabitants of a country of 300 million people. Even if there were only one person on FOTH Island, that person would still enjoy the same equal right of healthcare, although fulfilling that right may be difficult or impossible.

Poobah: Science, especially mathematics, has a zero-tolerance policy for double-talk and nonsense. If it didn’t, we might have some crazy mathematician wondering if we can really know the meaning of “1” and other mathematicians actually falling for such idiotic nonsense. One (1) is the basic unit of all things mathematical. Individual, or self, is the basic unit of all things human.

Maybe the reason SuperDave is having difficulty understanding your concept of “individual responsibility” is because you are attempting to make the utterly nonsensical appear to make sense! The same goes for that nonsensical circular reasoning asserted in http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.... . I place no epistemic value whatsoever on testimony because there is no such thing as a “higher authority” of rational thought. We don’t need the opinions or testimony of anyone else to explore the foundations of our principles, only our own selves and our individual abilities to think rationally.

So, without reference to anyone else’s dogma, doctrine or circular reasoning, let’s explore healthcare “rights” on an island with only two (2) human inhabitants, each possessing equal individual human rights. In order to cut to the chase, let us further say that one of these two people happens to need round-the-clock medical care and the other person happens to be a healthy, licensed MD. How does medical care as a “right” manifest on this island and how, as a practical matter, is it possible for EACH to possess an equal “right” of access to it?

To further cut to the chase, if you choose to dismiss the above scenario as absurd, my question then becomes this: If healthcare is so clearly a “right” in the case of 300 million people and so clearly absurd in the case of only two people then what is the rational basis for determining that magic number of “n people”, where a group of n+1 people possesses the “right” to healthcare while a group of n-1 people does not?

SuoerDave, I'm sorry if you feel like my last comment was condescending. We have a very different understanding of individual responsibility. To me it is a phrase of two words that can not be broken or substituted with other words. It has very specific legal and moral definitions. It is not simply an individual being responsible. It is much more specific than that. I'm certain the debate in choice of words is further exasperated by my use of the word "avoiding." It is not meant in a derogatory manner at all and is being used very clinically. You are right that we choose insurance to pool our risks. We do that to avoid our individual responsibility (legal) and the potential catastrophic losses. There is nothing wrong or irresponsible in doing that. As I said before, I think it is the responsible thing to do. Have a nice weekend.

SuperDave, you left out a critical word in your attempt to mischaracterize what I said. I did NOT, as you just stated, say, "Avoiding responsibility is not being irresponsible?" I said avoiding INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY is not being irresponsible. You need to study the moral and legal definitions of INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. The definition is well defined and it is not just two words thrown together. The phrase has SIGNIFICANT moral and legal definitions. Until you understand what INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY means, you're going to keep making the same mistake over and over and keep confusing it with an individual being responsible.

I am not nitpicking words here at all. You are failing to understand the moral and legal definitions of the phrase "individual responsibility." And frankly it is really exhausting trying to discuss this with a person who does not understand the moral and legal.definitions of the phrase.

@poobah: My last post was responding to your Mar 23, 2012 at 5:24 p.m post, not the following Mar 23, 2012 at 5:32 p.m post. So I didn't even read what you wrote until after my last post. At any rate, I think you're clutching at straws a bit. To say this: "people who buy insurance are AVOIDING individual responsibility -- and they are! But they are not being irresponsible" is a little cryptic. Avoiding responsibility is not being irresponsible? Well what is it then? Being *less* responsible?
I don't agree with your wording, but I do get your point. I would say it this way - people who buy insurance are managing risk by pooling their premiums with others, and pooling their risks with others, and are thus doing the responsible thing. Think of it this way. All the neighborhood kids are swimming in your pool. You share the responsibility of watching the kids by having a rule that at least one of the parents must be present at all times. As long as this rule is adhered to, it cannot fairly be said that any of the parents who are not present at the pool can be said to be avoiding personal responsibility (although they are clearly avoiding spending their personal time watching the kids swim!).
And I hope you appreciate the "pooling" analogy :) Have a good night.

FOTH, earlier I took exception to your statement that, "Either you own yourself or someone else does." Here is a citation (bottommost link contains full argument) to an argument interestingly titled 'Libertarian "full self-ownership" permits voluntary enslavement,' in support of my previous comment that, 'We are in possession of our "self," it lives within us, but that does not mean we can not have thoughts or take actions that would appear to others that we have allowed some part of our "self" to serve, or be controlled by, others; nor would that indicate we have relinquished ownership of our "self" to others.'

Argument: Libertarian "full self-ownership" permits voluntary enslavement [ http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.... ]

"Let us now consider four important objections to full self-ownership. One objection is that it permits voluntary enslavement. For agents have, it claims, not only the right to control the use of their person, but also the right to transfer that right (e.g., by sale or gift) to others. Some libertarians—such as Rothbard (1982)—deny that such transfer is even possible, since others cannot control one's will. This, however, seems to be a mistake, since what is at issue is the moral right to control permissible use (by giving or denying permission), not the psychological capacity to control. Many authors—such as Locke (1690) and Grunebaum (1987)—deny that the rights over oneself are so transferable, typically on the ground that such transfers undermine one's autonomy. These authors thus reject full self-ownership, although they endorse a partial form. Those who defend the right of self-enslavement—Steiner (1994), for example—typically defend it on the ground (roughly) that the right to exercise one's autonomy is more fundamental than the protection or promotion of one's autonomy." - Libertarianism from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libert... ]

SuperDave, please, I NEVER said, "people who purchase insurance are being irresponsible." Everything following that statement in your comment is totally worthless because it's all based on a statement I NEVER said.

In fact, I said the EXACT opposite! I said, and I quote, "the most responsible thing a person can do is to AVOID individual responsibility when it comes to healthcare insurance and share the responsibility with others."

I said participating in insurance is the most responsible thing a person can do!!! How you can twist that to say I said people who buy insurance are being irresponsible is beyond me!

What I did say is that people who buy insurance are AVOIDING individual responsibility -- and they are! But they are not being irresponsible. I think people have a huge misunderstanding of what the phrase "individual responsibility" means. It means you are going to be completely and totally responsible for yourself and your expenses. When you buy insurance you are now SHARING responsibility and are no longer individually responsible for all of your expenses. What's so hard to understand about that?

No, you've pretty much taken care of that too. Sorry, I can't agree that people who purchase insurance are being irresponsible. That is akin to saying that, if I paint my house, I'm being irresponsible because I'm avoiding the responsbility of repairing rotting wood. Or if I exercise and stay fit, I'm avoiding the responsibilty of dealing with disease. Or if I call the fire department because my house is on fire, I'm being irresponsible because I'm not trying to put out the fire myself. Or if I hire a tax attorney to prepare my income tax returns, I'm being irresponsible because I'm not doing it myself. The examples are endless.
What you are failing to see is that we live in a cooperative society, with specialized roles and duties that we all share and enjoy benefit from, in a responsible way! You wouldn't be able to drive your car to the grocery store without literally thousands of people who are involved in the very existence of your car. Are you avoiding the resposibility of walking to the grocery store? Of growing your own food? Of carrying your own water from the river?

SuperDave, I personally believe, and have a feeling you would agree, the most responsible thing a person can do is to AVOID individual responsibility when it comes to healthcare insurance and share the responsibility with others. This is one reason I am such a vocal proponent of a universal, single-payer healthcare system where EVERYONE avoids the potential catastrophic financial consequences of individual responsibility (regardless of their ability to pay).

Touting "individual responsibility" is nothing more than a rhetorical device when it comes to the healthcare discussion. It is totally disingenuous to hear people use the "socialism versus individual responsibility" rhetoric when they themselves are AVOIDING individual responsibility by participating in a SOCIALISTIC healthcare insurance plan.

SuperDave, I agree with you on that with one caveat. You are being responsible, in part for yourself and in part for others, BUT you have also avoided individual responsibility and the potential catastrophic financial consequences of individual responsibility.

FOTH, nothing requires me to agree with your premise that you either own yourself or someone else owns you. What is YOUR definition of "self" anyway? To me, "self" is the part of each of us that facilitates our thinking, informs our consciousness and ultimately controls our actions.

We are in possession of our "self," it lives within us, but that does not mean we can not have thoughts or take actions that would appear to others that we have allowed some part of our "self" to serve, or be controlled by, others; nor would that indicate we have relinquished ownership of our "self" to others.

You take actions every day in which you allow others to control parts of your "self." You stop at stop signs and red lights. You follow predetermined traffic routes. If your manager asks you to do something, chances are you do it. Do they own your "self?" Of course not.

Poobah: I'm done for today but SuperDave wants to play. :-)

@Poobah: I will agree with your statement that "You are taking only PARTIAL responsibility for yourself", if you agree with this statement: You are also taking PARTIAL responsibility for everyone else. Ergo, you are being responsible. And the insurance companies still make a lot of money, so obviously we are collectively paying them more than we receive back in benefits.

Poobah: LOL If you believe strongly in something, you should be able to make a logical case for it, built on premises of truth. (You know that I know that you know this is true. :-)

Either you own yourself or someone else does. To quote Ross Perot, "It's that simple!"

FOTH, tell me what it is that you think I'm trying so hard not to say?

FOTH, as with many things, there is not a YES or NO answer to your question. There are some services such as healthcare, education and defense that I feel are best served by government, regardless if that infringes on someone's right of choice or some covenant of self-ownership.

Do you think that our defense, education and highway system should be implemented and maintained on a voluntary, self-ownership basis?

Poobah: I'm pretty good at detecting when someone is trying very hard to NOT say something. And, in this situation, I don't even have the benefit of reading body language. :-)

SuperDave said, "You are in fact taking responsibility for yourself."

No you aren't. You are taking only PARTIAL responsibility for yourself and you are avoiding individual responsibility and the costs associated with it. You are asking all of the other policy holders to share in your responsibility.

Heart transplant costs: $997,700 (Table 2) [ http://publications.milliman.com/researc... ]

I pay just about $425 per month for my healthcare insurance. If I were to require a heart transplant, I would be asking other policy holders to make up the difference of my premiums and deductible -- which would be $9,100 in any given year. So I would be paying less than 1% of the cost of the transplant. I would be relying on other policy holders to pay the other 99.1% for me. That is not individual responsibility any way you manipulate the words. Individual responsibility would be myself paying for the ENTIRE procedure.

Poobah: Then I take it your answer is "no" on the principle of self-ownership?

(We can discuss the implications vis-a-vis founding fathers, healthcare, etc.)

Thanks, futurerichguy. You're already rich in wisdom. :-)

FOTH, I watched the video you recommended and have just a few observations. I don't want them to be a distraction from our healthcare discussion, but had to point out a few things. By the way, I liked the music. I felt like minimizing the window and just listening to the music... Haha. Seriously, the producers/directors would have done themselves a great favor if they didn't present their opinions in such stark and absolute terms. Maybe it was just the guy's voice, trying to go for that James Earl Jones sound, but it was just too authoritarian for me, especially for a video espousing liberty.

1) Two people who voluntarily exchange property are both better off.

Wow, I can think of so many situations where that is not true. All one need do is look at the hundreds of thousands of lawsuits every year where deals were done to voluntarily exchange property and it ends up in a terrible mess for one or all parties.

2) You have the right to seek leaders for yourself but you have no right to impose rulers onto others.

Just how would that work in, well, America for example? I can select my governor, senator and president but I have no right to impose them on you? You have a right to seek your own governor, senator and president?

3) Virtue can exist only when there is free choice.

So outlandish it doesn't warrant a comment.

4) Problems in the world that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for the people of the Earth to stop asking government officials to initiate force on their behalf.

Seriously... I don't recall the people of the Earth asking George W. Bush to invade Iraq, Kennedy to invade Vietnam, Reagan to invade Grenada, etc. The solution is for the people of the Earth to start DEMANDING that government officials stop initiating force.

In general, I just find it so quizzical that so many modern libertarians cite the founding fathers and the liberties bestowed upon us by the system they implemented. But one only need examine the environment those men lived in, and the lack of guarantees against imposition of force on others that they left out of that system. Particularly, the two things that stands out are slavery and the oppression of women. How, after watching the video, could any libertarian cite the body of founding documents as principles they would strive for? I'm not saying you're doing that, but many libertarians are.

Don't know if this has already been said (who has time to read 320 comments?). As to the point about "insurance being a means to avoid responsibility", that is inaccurate. Insurance is a way to manage risk. Take car insurance as an example. You pay a small amount now to insure you against damage to your car later. You are in effect betting that you will need to file a claim, the insurance company is betting you will not. Everyone pools their premiums, and in so doing everyone shares the risk. You are in fact taking responsibility for yourself.

Poobah: So, after watching that video, do we agree on the principle of self-ownership?

Good. I like being proven wrong. I also like Szechuan beef, but I digress...

You are wrong. The brevity of my replies is due to my interest in the Szechuan Beef I am dining on and having to type on my smartphone. I'll be home shortly. Carry on!

Poobah: I am starting to get the uneasy feeling that you are purposefully trying to avoid having the discussion that I so transparently wish to have. Please tell me that I am wrong.

FOTH said, "Poobah: Sorry, I don't even remotely accept that psychcentral argument as any justification for one person's use of force against another."

Sorry if my point wasn't clearly relayed. I wasn't suggesting others should force anything on anyone. In fact, I was proposing that "choice trumps everything" and the human choice system results in people THEMSELVES forcing things upon THEMSELVES by being unable to make good choices. As the summary had stated...

Americans will absolutely reject socialism -- not because of the word, but what it will mean to individual rights and perspective on individual freedoms.

Greatplan -- you did not hear the term class warfare -- until Obama began to use the policy as a campaign for re-election. He cannot stand on his record, nor his past -- and the future or legacy of his administration will be viewed extremely negative to individual freedoms for this country. His destruction of wealth at ALL levels and his hatred for this country. He will go down as the worst president ever, until another far left comes along -- but it will be awhile before someone this far left will be allowed into office again.

FOTH said, "If I understand your premise, you assert that buying insurance represents a desire to "gain"?"

Close. The voluntary choice to buy healthcare insurance is an avoidance of individual responsibility and its potentially catastrophic losses, in favor of shared responsibility and a cap on losses. That may or may not result in a gain, but in either case avoids the individual responsibility and potential catastrophic losses.

I'm open to any proposal that provides universal insurance regardless of ones ability to pay for it. Anything less is a piecemeal approach that results in many uninsureds and increased costs for the total population set.

Poobah: Sorry, I don't even remotely accept that psychcentral argument as any justification for one person's use of force against another. Red herring argument.

Instead, I will ask you, Poobah, to make the case for your right to use force on me, FOTH.

(First, watch this video. The sound loop can be annoying. I suggest turning the volume way down.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys...

Rawhide: Well said. I believe if the private insurance industry continues raising rates, (class warfare), they will cause an uprising that may bring on socialization. They better be careful!

Universal health care is a staple of modern economies. Canada and many European countries do it right. Get on board US, you look pathetic and your citizens are needlessly dying.

Gandalf: I honestly did not present that as a non-answer. First, I don't multi-task very well and, second, my discussion with Poobah might possibly answer your questions anyway. (The alternative would be to ignore you completely. Nothing personal.)

The premises I referred to are: "...become a cost burden to others.." and "...people who have to pick-up the slack...".

Says who? Those are true only if there is a gun to someone's head. It doesn't necessarily have to be MY head.

Poobah: First of all, I don't believe people are staunchly opposed to socialism, per se. I thought my examples illustrated that fact. People are staunchly opposed to the WORD "socialism" and justifiably opposed to be coerced. Coercion changes everything. It's the axiom here.

If I understand your premise, you assert that buying insurance represents a desire to "gain"? Of course! Who ever bought insurance with the expectation of paying in more than the value of benefits they receive? (That's the main reason why healthcare costs hyper-inflate. But also because health insurance isn't really "insurance".) Who ever gambles with the expectation of losing? That can be said for any voluntary transaction. Each of us spends money with the belief that whatever we receive in return will make us happier (or less miserable) than whatever we exchanged for it. In the ideal voluntary transaction, both parties really DO win. That's why people enter voluntarily transactions. Did that make sense?

Now, what about my proposition: why government?

FOTH, on the subject of "choice," here's a short summary of a study done at University College London. [ http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/03/09/... ]

"The results of a new study from researchers at University College London suggest that our brains subconsciously filter out options when faced with a complex decision. For instance, when faced with making a series of decisions, where each step depends on the previous one, we often feel overwhelmed. This leads to simplifying the problem by avoiding any plan where the first step has a seriously negative association — no matter what the overall outcome would be. This “pruning” decision-making bias can result in poor decisions, according to the researchers."

I think "choice trumps everything" proponents should think about our individual "choice system." Choice in humans is not, unfortunately as far as I'm concerned, a Markov chain where the next state depends only on the current state (and a choice) and not the sequence of states that preceded it. In other words, Markov chains have no memory, only an awareness of the current state. I think our only hope to save us from our "choice system" is technological singularity.

Anyway, thanks for the memory, or not... :-)

FOTH said, "...insurance is a voluntary contractual agreement to share, not avoid, personal responsibility. Insurance is defacto gambling; the insurance company wagers that nothing bad will happen and you wager that something bad WILL happen."

FOTH, I left out the "In RAF's case," when I quoted you because I don't want what I'm about to say to be limited to a specific individual.

Why would any person, but particularly a person who is staunchly opposed to socialism and believes very strongly in individual responsibility, freely choose to participate in a socialistic program like healthcare insurance?

Even when using a healthcare insurance program, you still have a full choice of doctors, clinics, hospitals, prescriptions drugs and treatment options, despite the fact that MANY of those choices could result in your policy not paying for those choices. On the other hand, if you want maximum coverage of your healthcare expenses, it means you have made a choice to limit your choices. That seems, well, ironic if CHOICE TRUMPS EVERYTHING.

So why would someone make a choice to participate in healthcare? Could it be that the reason for making the choice to participate in a socialistic program like healthcare insurance is done to avoid individual responsibility and its potentially catastrophic financial consequences? You can call healthcare insurance a "contractual agreement to share," which is not an incorrect statement. But, on the other hand, you can not deny that it is also an avoidance of individual responsibility and its potentially catastrophic financial consequences.

Gandalf: Not to get all Confucian on you but the answer to your question can be found in the premises you assume in asking it.

Poobah: In RAF's case, insurance is a voluntary contractual agreement to share, not avoid, personal responsibility. Insurance is defacto gambling; the insurance company wagers that nothing bad will happen and you wager that something bad WILL happen. Just give RAF a "touche!" and move on. :-)

As to your proposal for a voluntary federal program: I give a very qualified "maybe". Generally speaking, and with great reservation, I am open to discussing roles for government beyond narrow military and police protection. But, there are many complications therewith, not the least of which is that government has a monopoly on use of force, giving it unfair competitive advantage. (If I were to argue this point, here is where I would expound on the grotesque immorality of forcing successful Ford workers, stockholders, etc at gunpoint to bear the burden of GM's stupidity and incompetence.) Please understand that I am only temporarily ducking your topic because it is very long and complicated.

But, rather than discuss your suggestion (which I don't totally dismiss) why not consider the exact same thing you are proposing, except in the form of a voluntary effort of individuals, without any government intervention? I could wholeheartedly support something like that! In discussing this concept honestly, we will reveal the fundamental truth of our convictions and beliefs. :-)

FOTH, given that you feel CHOICE TRUMPS EVERYTHING, and I do mean EVERYTHING, you would then have no objection to a public healthcare option offered by the federal government if the decision to accept that option was by choice.

FOTH said, "Poobah: You are absolutely correct that private health insurance is a system of shared responsibility..."

So you would agree that by voluntarily purchasing health insurance a person is avoiding individual responsibility and instead is participating in a socialistic enterprise?

Happy Birthday....Obamacare!

The Whole Truth

http://youtu.be/PJ-p29xEM0s

Poobah: You are absolutely correct that private health insurance is a system of shared responsibility but RAF is correct that the fundamental issue is choice. Choice trumps EVERYTHING!

This may sound surprising but I have no personal objection to socialism, with one essential proviso: participation MUST be 100% voluntary. A purely socialist community could peacefully co-exist within a strictly libertarian form of government. (Provided it was 100% voluntary, of course.) I personally don't like socialism but I don't hate socialists. Some of my friends are socialists. I just have zero tolerance for anyone who sticks a gun to my head or asks others to do so on their behalf. No exceptions.

There are many examples of socialist economic systems within the USA. Most households operate on socialist economic principles. Ditto for most homeowners associations, social clubs and so forth. The purest example (to my knowledge) of a socialist economy is a typical church congregation. Maybe someone has a better economic example than a church of, "from each according to ability; to each according to need" but I can't think of any.

Choice. No exceptions. Not negotiable.

LOL, current socialist thinking is purchasing insurance is avoiding personal responsibility...I suspect in this same weird thought process purchasing stocks, mutual funds, or bonds is also avoiding personal responsibility. Absolutely clueless.

RAF said, "No2 you skipped right passed the part what I do is through personal choice"

No, I made it quite clear that when it came to your individual responsibilities you made the personal choice to avoid those responsibilities and expect policyholders to provide handouts to you when your medical expenses exceeded your premiums. We're in perfect agreement you made a personal choice...to avoid individual responsibility.

No fear, sorry. I meant I would the defer question of whether that was 2nd or 3rd grade math. I don't expect you to teach him, don't worry.

No2 you skipped right passed the part what I do is through personal choice. I choose to provide this for my family as I do with other insurance products like life, vision, home owners, auto, and others. These are done because of my choices, the key word. You on the other hand want to remove this. Your wanted change makes nothing better; it is just a social change. If you want to improve it I am all for it. So far everything you have suggested does nothing to improve cost, care, or quality with respect to medical care in this nation. Making improvements are always good, making changes for social or change sake does nothing but add costs, headaches, and remove choice.

""I'm off to bed. I didn't sign up to teach 3rd grade math to an adult. That might even be 2nd grade stuff... I'll defer to fearandrhetoric4dummies on that one. See you all tomorrow "" Was that a shot Poobah?? LOL

RAF said, "Under what you want it becomes a mandated expense for all, socialism, vs individual responsibility."

You've made a point of telling us many times that you pay for your own health insurance policy. Your health insurance policy is just another way of avoiding your own individual responsibility! Who pays the cost of your major illness when it exceeds what you pay in premiums? Other policy holders do! Why don't you start taking responsibility for yourself, drop your health insurance and cover your own medical expenses instead of expecting handouts from other policy holders? You're all for individual responsibility until you're the individual.

"There should be no "market" when it comes to peoples lives"
-
Why not socialize food, water, and housing? People can't live without them either.

There should be no "market" when it comes to peoples lives, IMO. It should be about Humanity not profit margins. Not about Walmart taking out life insurance policies on terminally ill patients.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cLrXYmUu...

Gotta love insurance!! USA , USA, USA, should be ashamed of yourself if you think this is okay.

Single payer just means single source, not free. everyone uses health care , everyone should pay, period.

No2 where you math fails, the money for medical care is still spent under single payer. Under what you want it becomes a mandated expense for all, socialism, vs individual responsibility. Nothing in your plan reduces care, expenses, or patients.

As with most things in life, when it is "free" (perceived) more is ALWAYS used. But don't let facts get in the way of your point of view.

LOL yes No2, I don't expect you to change your mind. I enjoy reading your tired and false points, just provides people like me another opportunity to provide the other side of the information, so individuals can be adults and decide for themselves what they want based on all information; not slivers of data that people like you provide.

I'm off to bed. I didn't sign up to teach 3rd grade math to an adult. That might even be 2nd grade stuff... I'll defer to fearandrhetoric4dummies on that one. See you all tomorrow

If a guy gets ten parking tickets a year and each one is $100, he racks up a $1,000 bill each year. If the city quits issuing parking tickets, what happens to his bills? Yes, they decrease $1,000. Why is it so difficult for an adult to understand 3rd grade math? If 57% of medical bankruptcies are due to medical bills, and you implement single-payer insurance and eliminate medical bills, what is going to happen to medical bankruptcies boys and girls? Yes, they'll decrease 57%.

You are still pushing your tobacco/cancer link denying Fraser Institute I see RAF. You tried pushing them off on us once before. Wonder why no credible medical journal will publish their drivel? Keep hunting

No2 stated "Medical bankruptcy due to MEDICAL BILLS (which account for 57.1% of all medical bankruptcies in the United States) does not exist in countries with universal, single-payer healthcare like Canada, United Kingdom and France."
-
Completely false!
http://american.com/archive/2009/august/...

Massachusetts does not have a single-payer health care plan. The situation you point out in Massachusetts with medical bankruptcies is a great example that kludges of systems with private insurance companies and user premiums will not work. Thanks for pointing that out for us. Universal, single-payer systems will reduce medical bankruptcies.

"Medical Bankruptcy in Massachusetts: Has Health Reform Made a Difference?"
The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 124, Issue 3 , Pages 224-228, March 2011

"Conclusion: Massachusetts' health reform has not decreased the number of medical bankruptcies."

gandalf as is typical of those who have problems understanding how others don't agree with them you fall back to the same liberal strategy to blame fox news to substantiate your opinions and positions due to your own lack of conviction. This reflex is one way those like use to satisfy your need to think you are correct. Reality is a different story, but then again as with reality the truth that I don't watch fox also falls outside your preconceived notions. This leaves you wandering around with no way to counter pure opinion and positions.

The very fact that the great country of Canada, that one many leftists point toward as a great example of single payer falls flat with these same who also state we need single payer because of bankruptcy rates in this nation. The reality of that picture, in Canada medical care and bills is still one of the leading causes for bankruptcy. This has nothing to do with my position on not wanting single payer, but letting the false talking points get pushed forward without question to substantiate and agenda that changes something for the whole nation, and not for the better, is something I refuse to remain quite about.

I fully think our medical system needs correction but I also understand switching from one not great way to another not great way is not a fix; it is only a social change. If the reason to change everything is really to fix it I am all for it, but don't push social wants in my face under the false umbrella of change and expect me to sit quietly...not going to happen.

Poobah: Nooooo... not EySteR! I intentionally avoid him to minimize his page hits!

Sorry, I don't have any links to my Chimp Tribal Gene comments. Just listen for crickets or find threads that "someone" has killed. It will be the comment immediately preceding. ;-) Seriously, I did discover a guy who came to this same conclusion but explains it better than I: http://drstevenhodes.typepad.com/meta_ph... I, too, am 100% convinced it is genetically programmed.

If you especially enjoy this sort of stuff, here is a very, very closely related one for you: consider WHY people never smack into each other on heavily crowded sidewalks. The most popular but not the correct answer is, "Because they can SEE each other, you idiot!"

FOTH, do you have a link to your posts that you mentioned? I'd enjoy reading them. By the way, amusement awaits you: "Spare the rod and spoil the pastor! Use the ROD!" [ http://www.gazettextra.com/weblogs/we-pe... ]

NoLeftist:"What kills me is that most lefties are usually very hostile to religion. But when you look at what they believe, it is so obviously contrary to reality or based on false or misconstrued data (as is clearly evident on this string) as to be laughable."

YOU are absolutely wrong. I am a Christian and I am not Republican, nor am I Democratic. When is the last time you actually picked up the Bible to read it? Maybe you will be enlightened.
I can tell you one thing, I am not hostile towards religion, but hostile towards those that claim they are Christians and come up with statements that are going against God's teachings.

Poobah: YIKES, was that link a disturbing read or what? I feel more affinity to bonobos and will probably have nightmares. Disturbing but thoroughly fascinating. You may have read one or a dozen of my posts about the chimp tribal gene hypothesis? I could talk about this stuff for hours. Thank you for that insight! You have given me something new to ponder. :-)

FOTH, when I read your most recent post, which as usual piqued my interest, and you asked, "Which one is the true sociopath in that David & Goliath relationship," it reminded me of a book I'd read a few years ago by Dr. Frans de Waal called "Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes." As interesting as the book was, I found Dr. Liane Leedom's short review of it, "A society where everyone is a sociopath" just as intriguing. [ http://www.lovefraud.com/blog/2009/06/18... ]

The item I would take issue with is your "no-strings-attached" qualifier when you said, "Right now, highly regarded authoritative organizations seek out desperate people at the lower end of the social strata and shove no-strings-attached freebies in their faces." As Dr. Leedom proposes, and Dr. de Waal supports in his reply to her e-mail, "So grooming in the first case is simply part of a political strategy involving status. In the second case, it seems to solidify group coherence to achieve a rather nasty result."

I think there are strings attached to those "freebies."

It is clear from Table 2 below that 57.1% of medical bankruptcies in the United States occur because of MEDICAL BILLS. 40.3% occur due to LOSS OF INCOME DUE TO ILLNESS. With a universal, single-payer system, 57.1% of all medical bankruptcies (those due to MEDICAL BILLS) would be eliminated.

Medical bankruptcy due to MEDICAL BILLS (which account for 57.1% of all medical bankruptcies in the United States) does not exist in countries with universal, single-payer healthcare like Canada, United Kingdom and France.

Citation: Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study (published in The American Journal of Medicine) [ http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343... ]

Table 2. Medical Causes of Bankruptcy, 2007

Debtor said medical bills were reason for bankruptcy: 29.0%

Medical bills >$5000 or >10% of annual family income: 34.7%

Mortgaged home to pay medical bills: 5.7%

MEDICAL BILL PROBLEMS (any of above 3): 57.1%

Debtor or spouse lost ≥2 weeks of income due to illness or became completely disabled: 38.2%

Debtor or spouse lost ≥2 weeks of income to care for ill family member: 6.8%

INCOME LOSS DUE TO ILLNESS (either of above 2): 40.3%

RAF: A little duct tape and the soapbox is now as good as new! :-) I'm not certain if you agreed or disagreed with my premise. My point is, why don't we all condemn sociopaths wherever we happen to find them? Right now, highly regarded authoritative organizations seek out desperate people at the lower end of the social strata and shove no-strings-attached freebies in their faces. (Examples cited, upon request.) Which one is the true sociopath in that David & Goliath relationship?

I see the lefties aren't putting forth any of their soup-kitchen "facts" anymore. That's progress!

FOTH I agree there are many issues with people, companies, and policies that live off the govt golden milk hose. As it is the entitlement programs are the ones written into law that is not negotiated on during any budget and have built-in increases that our children will have to deal with down the road.

RAF: I'm with Gandalf on the "primary" cause of our current condition. Entitlement is an expression of greed. Both are serious social problems across all demographics and all social classes. However, in terms of shear economic numbers, the breadth and depth of damage done by the entitlement/greed of the powerful and connected oligarchy in Washington D.C. is orders-of-magnitude greater than all of the damage done by the entitlement/greed of those currently on public assistance. Both do serious damage to the moral values of future generations. Unfortunately, it looks as if my soapbox is about to brea...

The best you could come up with is fox news how typical. If you are so certain that I watch fox news please show the words that I wrote that came from fox news. As is the case with most of your comments as soon as your points are proven false you typically fall back to the left wing rhetoric.

Too bad those that point to Canada as an example for single payer didn't see heath reasons are still near the top for causes of bankruptcies, again due to time lost from work; loss of income.

So much for the claim single payer protects assets....

Co-pays have been a part of almost every major national single-payer system in the world. They typically don't exceed a few dollars and there are provisions to waive them if people can not afford them. Have you actually ever taken the time to study any single-payer system?

No more responses to your distractions until you let us know if you support extending VA benefits to Medicare recipients at no cost.

5th time, still waiting for you to prove how single payer protects assets.....?????

Sorry that you're incapable of comprehending my explanation.

Third time... Do you support extending VA benefits to Medicare recipients at no cost?

Still waiting for you to prove how single payer protects assets.....?????

"You, on the other hand, enjoy a true single-payer system in the VA health plan."
-
LOL, again with more false information. Since a means test is part of the process before treatment where exactly does single payer fit into this dream you have concocted?

Oh and what about those VA co pays that some do pay? Does that fit your vison of single payer as well?

I suggest you at least attempt to learn about programs and their costs that you think others have before looking more foolish than you do.

Yes, your VA health plan clearly does. Do you support extending VA benefits to all Medicare recipients at no cost?

No2 stated "Your VA health benefits, which are provided as part.of a national, single-payer, taxpayer-funded plan, will cover all of your medical costs for life."
-
It does? http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/apps... I suggest you learn more about what you think others have before stepping in too deep.

Still waiting for you to prove how single payer protects assets.....?????

And by the way, RAF, in case you didn't get the memo... Medicare is NOT a single-payer system. Individuals can, and do, encounter significant expenses that they must pay and are billed for; oftentimes being unable to afford as you pointed out. You, on the other hand, enjoy a true single-payer system in the VA health plan.

""The entitlement mentality of this nation has created the mess we are in today"" a regurgitated talking point, nothing more.

RAF, if you're going to be disingenuous at least don't be so transparent about it. Your VA health benefits, which are provided as part.of a national, single-payer, taxpayer-funded plan, will cover all of your medical costs for life. Medicare is in no way equal to the benefits that the VA offers and Medicare carries with it significant costs for various options, drugs and co-pays.

Do you support replacing Medicare benefits with VA benefits at no cost?

No2 at least try to defend your point. How does a single payer plan protect a person’s assets? There are millions of seniors in this country that exhaust all their savings for medical care and th4ey have single payer.

If you are going to make a point try to make it a logical one based on fact not just your typical rhetoric. Again if you have proof single payer protects assets make it. Your subterfuge shows more insight on your weak position.

RAF, kind of ironic that you of all people would ask for proof of something. If you lose your private plan through cancellation or you reach your cap, you just start going to the VA. In the same situation, people who don't enjoy free lifetime access to a national single-payer system would be filing bankruptcy and selling of their assets. What more proof does anyone need?

No2 stated "RAF's assets are protected from bankruptcy due to catastrophic illnesses by a national, single-payer healthcare system"
-
If you think this is true provide your proof for it.

No2 stated "So while RAF peaches the evils of single-payer, he has it available to him for his lifetime."
-
I suspect you meant to say "preaches". No2 what bothers about what you think I have access to? Is it because you want it too? Why did you choose not to earn the vast wealth of benefits you think veterans have? The entitlement mentality of this nation has created the mess we are in today. Pretending another entitlement program will fix it fits well into many people’s definition of insanity.

In other words, RAF's assets are protected from bankruptcy due to catastrophic illnesses by a national, single-payer healthcare system that we, the taxpayers, pay for. The only reason he would support such a plan for anyone besides himself is simply because he cares about them. I think that explains it.

fear provide proof where single payer would prevent the situation you brought up. Medicare and medicaid are single payer and they refuse millions of claims a year for patients. Statisticly medicare has one of the higher denial rates. The blind faith some have thinking the govt will correct problems that already exist is insane.

fear, you must consider the fact that RAF has access to one of the largest free, single-payer healthcare plans in the United States. The VA health plan. He had once claimed everyone could serve and get those benefits. That idea died when I gave him figures on hundreds of millions of people enlisting. So while RAF peaches the evils of single-payer, he has it available to him for his lifetime. So he has no worries for himself. If something happens to his private plan he has his single-payer free VA plan always there for him.

"There is no way you could speak the way you do if you had ever witnessed any of the fallacies happen firsthand to those that you love. Instead you speak only of money, because that seems to be all youcare about based on your posts."
-
Another example of a person too cluless to talk about the topic at hand.

typical what? Human being?? Comments based on YOUR reactions and comments about "behaviors" and living paycheck to paycheck while not preparing for an untimely illness.
There is no way you could speak the way you do if you had ever witnessed any of the fallacies happen firsthand to those that you love. Instead you speak only of money, because that seems to be all youcare about based on your posts. that and free-market Capitalism.

""indeed how so many left wingers think they have the ability to gauge a person’s life they know nothing about other than postings on a newspaper forum. ""
Irony is not without a sense of reality RAF, and you can label anyone you want anything you want. What I see about you is that you are concerned only about money in every walk of life, not quality of anything, unless of course you can afford it. It is easy to assume a lot about you, because you do so well at showing your true colors, telling all others what failures they are without really posting much substance about anything.

Facts are if we had a single payer system, there would be far less bankruptcy. Old folks nationwide are going broke largely to Medicare part D and the large donught hole left by.... never mind getting into that discussion. Poverty rates and bakruptcy rates in this country are rising largely because of health insurance costs, that is a cold hard fact that you seem to try very hard to deny.
Try to remember that its not just the gravely ill people going bankrupt. Its hundreds of thousands of good-faith middle class workers, who may need a minor procedure that insurance decides not to cover. Happened to a dear friend of mine. Completely insured, savings, etc.... His wife needed an emergency histoectomy, he tore up his knee and required ACL surgery and his son had his tonsils removed. They had enough vacation time to cover the time lost , yet insurance denied his wife's coverage i believe over 20K handed him another 10 k bill after covering 50% of his knee surgery, and his sons was somewhere in the neighborhood of 5K. 35K in one year! Mortage payment, car payments......bankruptcy!! So again YOU deal in hypotheticals, Ill stay right here in reality and keep fighting the good fight.

"I guess when something terrible like that happens to someone you care dear for then maybe youll change your mind. OR maybe youll just stand over their hospital bed and tell them they should have vbeen saving for this their whole life, again I find you a very sad individual indeed."
-
So typical...

""Yes, and this does nothing to correct people’s behavior from living paycheck to paycheck and not being able to meet obligations when they become ill.""
Huh? So peoples "behavior" is why they live paycheck to paycheck? Not anything to do with the economy? And I have a nice little nest egg saved up, you want to know how quickly that would be gone if one of my kids got sick? And I have excellent coverage!! Some people dont get cancer or many other dehibilitating diseases and think aabout saving for that to happen their enbtire life, I am certain you havent. This is a primary reason why I am for single payer. When you get canncer, etc the last thing you should be worried about it losing everything you own to stay alive. I guess when something terrible like that happens to someone you care dear for then maybe youll change your mind. OR maybe youll just stand over their hospital bed and tell them they should have vbeen saving for this their whole life, again I find you a very sad individual indeed. I piture an old angry man at a table sliding every penny into a neat pile, because to you, NOTHING is more important than money.

fear your narsastic views are a joy to read. As No2 does, you also read more than was provided or you chose to skip over what was said entirely. The video you just wrote of with the Childs care exceeding allowable limits I wrote about.

I stated "Many of this situations depicted in your links could have been solved with legislation years ago [limits for costs or refusal of coverage], and in some cases the current legislation still does nothing to address. I have never said our system is perfect and needs no changes..."

The story of this man and his child are not the majority of situations. There are thousands of seniors each year already under medicare and still working that end up filing due to debt loads and in many of those case it has to do with missing income while ill; they are all ready under a single payer program.

The fact remains using bankruptcy as a reason to put forth single payer ignores the fact this will not fix most of the issues for many of the people that already file. The current single payer plan for seniors and obamacare do nothing to solve the problem you and other think will be fixed with a new single payer plan.

You also stated "What a sad life you must lead, very sad indeed". Ironic indeed how so many left wingers think they have the ability to gauge a person’s life they know nothing about other than postings on a newspaper forum. Perhaps you could use your over sensitive predictive ability to find a real solution to the problems at hand instead of guessing about a person’s mood or living standards.

Everyone else is "ignorant" and Failing" and stating "false" points. I love it. Over and over your arguments are to downplay anothers opinion by putting yourself forth as some kind of know it all, you cannot have many friends in real life if that is how you really are.
That being said, who on EARTH could keep up with MILLIONS of dollars in bills? No matter whom they are? I posted videos of nurses, lawyers who got rare blood dieases that paid insurance that could NOT keep iup with bills simply because the insurance companies decided NOT to coover their treatments.
I ask you specifically to watch the video of the FATHER who NEVER missed work (no decrease in income) and was 1) forced to leave his job because the cost to cover his sons treatments for a rare blood diseasewere driving the rates through the roof, and 2) was forced into a paper divorce with his wife so they could get more coverage for their son who BTW was a 2 year old!
While being an angry old know it all, and calling everyone else failures and spinning false arguments , etc.... you refuse to address reality after reality about the fallacies of our corrupt system. So when presented with factual information, when presented with realities of our system being brutal and inhumane and destroying families nationwide, all you can come up with is "loss of income" because missed time at work as some kind of factual argumennt? What an unbelievable reach on your part!! What about thousands and thousands of parents who have children with illnesses nationwide that dont miss work? Do they count? Or are they just statistics? What a sad life you must lead, very sad indeed.
Maybe you might read Wendell Potters book, or at least watch some interviews with him in them, and try to deduce why this man left the industry that he was certainly very well paid in.

" I am for single payer care nothing less."
-
Yes, and this does nothing to correct people’s behavior from living paycheck to paycheck and not being able to meet obligations when they become ill. As I stated people with insurance already file bankruptcy when they become ill and are removed from work because of loss of income and not being able to pay the debts they already have.

gandalf stated "Your vain attempt to twist the words of others is increasingly typical "
-
ummm they were your words. If you want to correct your post put forth another one. Until then what you mentioned was answered. As is typical when you fail to make your point you want to blame others for your ignorance.

""
Specifically the reason for most people needing to file bankruptcy is cash flow vs debt.""
Ya think? And what oh what is the LARGEST cause of DEBT when you become ill? Is it even close? and you more than anyone else on these blogs should know good and well that I DO NOT support the ACA , never did. I think its better than what we have, but its not the long term solution. I am for single payer care nothing less. ACA is an insurance giveaway, thats it.

Fear stated "...my point are that your assertion about bankruptcy and healthcare is certainy not the case."
-
Nothing in anything you provided goes against what I stated. To refresh I stated in reference to the lefts talking point on bankruptcies being another need for single payer, "The real problem with those that get ill and file bankruptcy is not due to bills but is due to loss of income".

Specifically the reason for most people needing to file bankruptcy is cash flow vs debt. You and others, skip right over many who file bankruptcy already have insurance and nothing in the current obamacare package would change their situation. Many of those people live paycheck to paycheck before becoming ill. After becoming ill they LOSE income while still accumulating debt and not being able to meet their current financial obligations that have nothing to do with their illness like mortgages, car payments, and credit card debt(s).

Many of this situations depicted in your links could have been solved with legislation years ago [limits for costs or refusal of coverage], and in some cases the current legislation still does nothing to address. I have never said our system is perfect and needs no changes but going to single payer does nothing to address the issues of bankruptcies and loss of income due to illness like I stated.

Naw, gets old repeating facts to someone who doesnt like them. Nitpicking and name calling seem to be your game, but it really does zero for any argument you make.

Thanks for posting the Congressional Progressive Caucus link, westorbust. I hope people take the time to read the contents. While the budget proposal encompasses much, much more than healthcare, the public healthcare option included in the proposal would be a great catalyst for, and transition to, a universal single-payer system.

Socialism, Ben Franklin, YouTube. Anything but discussing healthcare.

Soup kitchen must be closed for the day!

Poobah I saw that video, and loved it!! Goes to show the base of the republican party.
FOTH- Excellent video, while I disagree with some of its premises and believe it to be FAR to generalized, still an excellent piece. I have always percieved the US to be an Oligarchy and actually believe that the founders set it up that way. Especially since in their republic dream, they failed to recognize that they themselves needed governing, and should have not been owning people(slaves) while writing laws and doctrines for the freedom of other white people. The constitution is and always has been a flawed document IMO and I dont percieve it to be the holy doctrine that some do. The 3/5 clause comes to mind, as well as no inclusions for womens rights. A brilliant document at the time , but still , over 250 years old and not written for the world we face today. I wonder how Ben Franklin would have percieved this nation today? And how we have turned into a plutocratic oligarchy, nothing close to the republic that they wanted. IMHO.

FOTH, don't worry. I have a feeling NoLeftist will be back for you to intellectually toy with.

NoSenseOfHumor either, I guess. :-)

Haha, you're the one who introduced religion into this discussion, NoLeftist! Now you're making a quick exit on it. Great idea, for you.

Discussing religion with you guys would be pointless and painful.

Anything not to discuss the subject at hand: to wit, your lame arguments regarding healthcare.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?...

NoLeftist: There is a HUGE difference between religion and socialism! One worships a supernatural deity and the other worships a gigantic pink Easter bunny carrying a bottomless basket of "free" eggs. (Pssst... the eggs are stolen. Pass it on...)

This http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIc... explains why I prefer to not use left-right labels.

FOTH - atheist and quite possibly a little to YOUR right, as are most of the atheists I know personally. :-)

fear, Gandalf and NoLeftist ... you seriously have to watch this very short YouTube video! I think someone was listening to NoLeftist and found his utopia! [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb62fpsyh... ]

greatplain: I'm 100% on the single payer health care side...I was simply answering no_leftists questions:)

""The more religious a state, the more likely it is to be GOP."" True, but the same things also apply to - The lowest living standards all tend to be GOP states, the lowest educated states tend to be GOP, the POOREST states also tend to be GOP.
SO does that mean that to be part of the GOP that you are God Fearing, stupid, poor , and live in a doublewide?Nice standards you set for your fellow repubs.

Great point, Gandalf. He also seems to fail to grasp the concept that a dollar in taxes is the same as a dollar in premiums. You've spent one dollar either way. Yet, he's so frightened of the word "taxes" that he is willing to keep the current system and spend twice as many dollars in premiums as he would have to spend in taxes in healthcare taxes in Canada.

I find it interesting how people that find some obscure tidbit about Canada's healthcare fail to remember that the United States system is worse. They easily forget to mention the 50 million Americans who have NO healthcare insurance. NONE! In fact, the United States has more people without healthcare insurance than the entire population of Canada! Let's hear about the infection rates and the flights to another state's hospital for expensive surgery of those 50 million uninsured Americans.

The more religious a state, the more likely it is to be GOP. The most ardent athiests are almost all huge Democrats (e.g. Bill Maher), and the frequency of church attendance is about the biggest predictor of party affiliation there is.

For example, all Senate Republicans voted against (and most Republicans surveyed opposed) the requirement that church ministries be forced to provide abortofascients to their employees even though the church was morally opposed to them, while most Democrats surveyed approved of the requirement.

I stand by my statement, and in any case disproving it would require a clear definition and agreement of what "leftie" is. I can assure you that my definition would include a majority of people usually hostile to religion.

Regardless, your contention that this disproves anything I have put forth is as lame as all the other stuff you've been throwing against the wall.

Soup's on!

tthompson: You're writing about Premier Danny Williams. He didn't want to have his chest cracked for open heart, so he went to a Miami doctor who operated from under his arm. Wikipedia says, "Williams said although he had "the utmost confidence" in his own province's health care system, his decision was to go to Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami to undergo "a very specialized piece of surgery [by] somebody who's doing this three or four times a day, five, six days a week." [58]
The article referring to his preference: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundla...
So, this is used by a lot of pro big private insurance supporters, but out of context. He didn't even seek out other province doctors.
How many more less rich Canadians survive over Americans?

What kills me is that most lefties are usually very hostile to religion. But when you look at what they believe, it is so obviously contrary to reality or based on false or misconstrued data (as is clearly evident on this string) as to be laughable.

Given such close-minded zealotry, you wonder why they are not the loudest "Bible thumpers." I guess they have their own religion, which is much more easily refuted than most other religions, but theirs nonetheless. And they will continue to believe in their religion facts be damned.

By the way, I figure all you lefties tried to prove me wrong on infection rates and found me to be right, which is why you haven't posted anything on it. I did a quick search for those of you here with open minds: "Canada's 'health-care-associated infection' rate — at 11.6 per cent — is one of the worst among developed countries, according to the Report on the Burden of Endemic Health Care-Associated Infection Worldwide 2011.

In the United States, it's as low as 4.5 per cent, the report says, while the European Centre for Disease Control says Europe's is 7.1 per cent."

http://www.canada.com/business/Canada+ca...

Yup, that's some world-class healthcare for you boys! But don't let those facts get in the way, go back for some of your thin leftist gruel in order that you not give up your religion!

Soup's on!

What is the single biggest item in the 15% (very few for-profit plans are above that.)?

Taxes! Those premium taxes are going up by billions under ObamaCare, and the remaining costs as a proportion of healthcare spend are decreasing, not increasing. Thus, they are lessening health care cost increases.

Many of the other costs are the same costs any plan would face, even a government plan. Guess who processes Medicare? Private insurance companies - the government does not process one Medicare claim! Not one! Why? Because the pricate companies are more efficient!

Or take Medicare Part D. That program is running 40% less than its original estimated costs. Why? Because private companies are running it! Even with their executive salaries and many buildings!

It's called REALITY.

NoLeftist said, "Up to 20% (and as little as 10% by the way) of premiums go to non-medical care. This will rise dramatically under ObamaCare though because guess what a big portion of that is: TAXES! Premium taxes, income taxes, property taxes, and now ObamaCare taxes! It's called REALITY."

You're entitled to live in your own virtual reality. That 20% goes to cover staff, executives, buildings, etc. to support the design, implementation, lobbying, marketing and sales of insurance plans. We shouldn't need to duplicate those efforts hundreds of times over or even participate in most of them at all. Eliminate billing, marketing, lobbying and sales entirely! The potential for savings is rationally undeniable. It's already been successfully done in other countries. Just compare the United States healthcare cost figures to France, Canada or the United Kingdom.

Dude, how is it disingenuous to say 1% of all healthcare dollars spent in the country is for health insurance profits when you lefties are saying that's the problem? If most insurance companies are nonprofit, how can health insurance company profits be a big problem? You guys are laughable!

Up to 20% (and as little as 10% by the way) of premiums go to non-medical care. This will rise dramatically under ObamaCare though because guess what a big portion of that is: TAXES! Premium taxes, income taxes, property taxes, and now ObamaCare taxes!

It's called REALITY.

Well, NoLeftist, thanks for your honesty in acknowledging that you didn't read the explanations of measurements contained in the separate Technical Paper #30 that accompanied the WHO report prior to passing judgment on it. That helps to explain both your and RAF's comments about the report.

NoLeftist, your 1% profits is disingenuous at best. What you should be looking at is the medical loss ratio required of insurance companies. Many of the insurance companies have been asking their states to ask for waivers to this provision that requires insurers to use at least 80 percent of premium payments on medical care or return that money to their customers. As you know, most insurance companies are organized as non-profits, so your 1% profit rhetoric is meaningless. Up to 20% of all premiums go to non-medical care. That represents a potential 20% savings on trillions of dollars over ten year periods.

You don't need to read all 200+ pages to know that the stats you gave pertain to the overall health of the population, not the quality of healthcare. You only need to read the intro to know what they're measuring (and what they're not).

You want good measures? Go to the CMS website: they pay providers based on things they can control, some of which I mentioned: redmission rates, infection rates, etc. Take a look at those metrics on your so-called great healthcare countries in Canada. You will be shocked (which is why it is laughable to even think someone would go to Canada for good healthcare.)

I am not the one making a case for single-payer healthcare by using meaningless stats that don't even pass a 5th grader's critical thinking. Thus, I have no obligation to tell you what numbers you should use to make your case.

But if you were genuinely interested in the truth and not an agenda, you might start by, say, adjusting for per capita GDP. Differences in income per capita explain about 85% of the variation in health expenditures per capita across industrialized countries. In other words, we spend more money in the U.S. for healthcare because we have more money to spend! Mali (which is based on the French Socialist system, by the way) ranks way up there in costs BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MONEY! People aren't opting for knee replacements in Mali, and are being denied them in Canada and Britain. You want me to deny your dad a knee replacement when he needs it? It'll keep costs down as it has in Canada and Britain!

You guys need to think through what you are implying by throwing out your meaningless stats.

And people who listen to your tired rhetoric need to critically examine your nonsense and ask how specifically ObamaCare would fix anything. To this point, not one person on the string has even made an attempt to argue that ObamaCare has addressed any of the problems you point out: bankruptcies, improved outcomes, spending less on healthcare, reducing the deficit. NOT ONE! It's all a shameless charade!

It's always interesting to see staunch "anti-socialists" explain their enthusiastic use and support of public education, public transportation, public utilities, public police and fire services or a litany of other "socialistic agenda" items.

RAF my point are that your assertion about bankruptcy and healthcare is certainy not the case. True some people have lost income, however insurance costs have skyrocketed over the last 15 years. Insurance companies also are covering less and less while charging more and more. An equation that simply cannot hold up. And of course this is an industry that spends tens of millions of dollars a year trying to figure out how NOT to provide their service.

More boogeymen. Who is the largest health insureer in almost every state? Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies, 75% of which are non profit. 1 penny of every health care dollar paid in the country goes to health insurance profits, which are dwarfed by the premium taxes those same companies pay in premium taxes and income taxes (not to mention the gargantuan ObamaCare taxes that go into effect in 2014).

Eliminate health insurer profits and you've reduced health care spend by less than 1%, and that presumes the for-profit insurers don't operate more efficiently than their non-profit brethren (which they do as can be validated by looking at publicly available admin expenses of both.)

More REALITY.

NoLeftist, I guess you accidentally overlooked this post I had made yesterday so I will repreat it for you. I have two questions for you.

1) You had an opinion on a highly technical, 215 page document in less than one hour after I provided the document. You criticized reports like this saying, "Giving healthcare rankings as a measure of the effectiveness of our healthcare system is a joke. Those healthcare rankings measure the overall health of the population, not the effectiveness of treating people after they're sick."

My first question is: did you read the document to see how they measured healthcare ranking to form your own opinion OR did you borrow some other person's opinion instead of forming your own?

2) I have provided you with measures of healthcare ranking and spending and none of them satisfy you.

My second question is: Which study do you recommend that we use to compare healthcare rankings and per capita spending between the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and France?

'Why did the premier of one of the Atlantic provinces fly to Florida for his heart surgery?'

Because he can afford to.

'Why have you never heard of an American governor flying to Canada for its great healthcare?'

Duh. Because they have tax payer funded health care.

Socialized medicine works around the world, unlike what the private insurance industry tells us all. I believe the real big monster to fear is the these companies who keep raising rates and start a class warfare of insurance coverage...or none. Talk about have and have nots!
If things don't change in the private insurance industry, they will fail by the will of the people, including those who fight for laisez faire economics. In other words, don't want socialized medicine? Get real with the rates.

gandalf sadly you must be losing the ability to remember your own posts, " defense of the nation against disease and disability is also a function of the government"

I suggest if you meant healthcare you should have stated healthcare. In the mean time I answered your previous post about disease and disability by showing you programs for this are already in existence.

Please spare me the country health rankings as a measure of healthcare effectiveness! That is a joke! How many hospitals say "the people in our neighborhood live longer than the people across town?" Would you base your decision on going to a hospital on something like that? Of course not!

Does CMS pay hospitals and doctors incentive payments based on that criteria? Of course not! Instead, they use readmission rates, infection rates, etc. TRUE metrics of how good healthcare is.

What kills me is that the same zealots who preach those metrics never use the same methodology on U.S. education. Tell a liberal "Milwaukee spends more per student than any other metro area and gets students that rank behind Albania" and they would have a conniption! They would have a million reasons why that isn't a fair metric and they'd be right because it doesn't control for family makeup (most kids are illegitimate in urban Milwaukee and have no father at home, which totally kills any kind of educational achievement, etc.)

So why do liberals always bring use the same logic for healthcare? Because it suits their argument! Liberal thought always has a problem when it meets reality. In this case, if healthcare in Canada is so damn good, why have you NEVER heard of anyone flying to Canada for healthcare? Why are there huge medical complexes all along the U.S. - Canadian border on the U.S. side? Because that's REALITY. Why did the premier of one of the Atlantic provinces fly to Florida for his heart surgery? Why have you never heard of an American governor flying to Canada for its great healthcare? Because it isn't great!

The facts liberals spew are such half-truths and numerous, it is a full-time job putting the lie to them. That never deters them though, because they are true believers, zealots, that just go back for another dose of liberal brainwashing from their leftist leaders and come back here and spout more of it. And no matter how many times they are made to look like fools, they just keep going at it and going at it. You almost wish they'd put that effort into running businesses: their blind determination would be great for them and the country. Why they don't is another story...

fear, thanks for that YouTube of Wendell Potter. I hadn't heard of him and will check out his book.

"I caught you red-handed, RAF. You never read "their ideas behind what data to use and how to weight it to achieve the conclusions they make" that you so "very critically" questioned. What a joke."
-
LOL speaking of jokes you're a fool. If I had read something and posted it I would have quoted it. The comment you claim I read was actually something I wrote because I meant it. Please keep looking for it in all your provided links....ROFLOL

I caught you red-handed, RAF. You never read "their ideas behind what data to use and how to weight it to achieve the conclusions they make" that you so "very critically" questioned. What a joke. Nobody should ever again take a single word you say seriously.

Poor No2 typical sniveling and whining when you don't get your way. Your own report provided plenty of reason all alone to question the outcomes. The fact they are tied to the UN is just another reason for questioning.

"To assess a health system, one must measure five things: the overall level of health; the distribution of health in the population; the overall level of responsiveness; the distribution of responsiveness; and the distribution of financial contribution."

This 5 things have nothing to do with car accidents or homicides. But car accidents and homicides both carry a weighting variable changed by the above 5 items. There are many ways to slice up data to achieve conclusions pretending theirs is the only or best way to do it is insanity.

Ironically the report also states "Health systems cannot be held responsible for influences such as the distribution of income and wealth" but then weight both of these factors in their data.

RAF said, "I question, very critically, their ideas behind what data to use and how to weight it to achieve the conclusions they make."

I then asked RAF, "You question their ranking based on what you read in the WHO report I cited?"

RAF answered, "No2 try reading what I wrote. It was very clear."

That's what I thought but I just wanted you to confirm that you had read that in the report I cited. Or so you claimed! "Their ideas behind what data to use and how to weight it to achieve the conclusions they make" was not in the report I cited -- it was in a separate technical paper that the report cited in a footnote that you would have had to Google to find! YOU NEVER READ "their ideas behind what data to use and how to weight it to achieve the conclusions they make."

I'm done trying to seriously discuss things with you. You're a troll. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Page 150 of WHO World Health Report [ http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.... ] Overall performance of health systems was measured using a similar process relating overall health system achievement to health system expenditure. Maximum attainable composite goal achievement was estimated using a frontier production model relating overall health system achievement to health expenditure and other non-health system determinants represented by educational attainment. Results of this analysis were largely invariant to model specification. More detail is provided in the corresponding technical paper.[32]

[32] Tandon A, Murray CJL, Lauer J, Evans D. Measuring overall health system performance for 191 countries. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2000 (GPE Discussion Paper No. 30).

That document is available from: [ http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pd... ]

No2 try reading what I wrote. It was very clear.

You question their ranking based on what you read in the WHO report I cited?

fear your point is what exactly?

Your idea of credible is obviously distorted to organizations that support your personal philosophies like the WHO. I question, very critically, their ideas behind what data to use and how to weight it to achieve the conclusions they make. Questioning conclusions made by those associated with the UN is not a new thing.

Wendell Potter a 20 year employee inside insurance-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWzAzBJDV...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKXEiGjNC...

A federal lawyer (loss of income?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4kEvdyIc...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2peGqRrjX...

"I paid my premiums for years, they made money off of me.It would be like going to the retaurant and never expecting them to serve you a meal after you paid for it."-Cynthia Campbell RN Diagnosed with 2 types of Cancer (loss of income)??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkGGDOp4u...

450,000 doctors cant be wrong!! Buncha damn liberals!!

The last video , the parents were suggested a "paper divorce' to address the cap issues allowed with the insurance carrier.
You can beat your chest all you like about the American system, I will tell you there are millions of people like these in this country, and someday this disgusting corrupt system will be history, and those who support it would only be swayed if their young son was catastrpohically ill and they went bankrupt trying to get him the lifesaving care he needed.

loss of income??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4xcV4bUL...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1uXUgTak...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPezNbD8p...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYedy10iU...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McGm00Mva...

OR Raf maybe their wonderful insurance carriers just decided to stop covering them?

Maybe this one would better refute your "loss of income" claim?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNHNCScYp...

a young child with middle income parents had a rare blood disease , his father had to LEAVE his job because his sons RARE blood disease caused the company premiums to go up!!
So please tell me another laugher!

If you're actually interested in credible healthcare service delivery data, refer to the WHO World Health Report I cited earlier. And remember, however "bad" someone attempts to make Canada's system sound, the United States system ranked seven countries worse. The Fraser Institute is the same organization that hosted a conference for big tobacco companies titled "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation and Should Government Butt Out?" Enough said.

No2 stated "With a COMPLETE overhaul of the system, to resemble what we see in France, Canada or the UK,"
-
We can end up just like this "Wait times for surgery vault to record high of 19 weeks in Canada" http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-... , no thanks.

No2 stated "Doctors need to be paid based on the health of their patients, not on how many patients they and their clinics are able to process."
-
Just curios if you feel the same for other professions as well. For example should teachers be paid for how well the teach and not just because they teach?

Another failed talking point in the healthcare debate pushed by those that want single payer; bankruptcies.

The real problem with those that get ill and file bankruptcy is not due to bills but is due to loss of income. Nothing in obamacare or any program put forth now by the left will do anything to help these people. Pretending to care and actually fixing problems are two very distinctive and separate processes that most on the left don't understand.

gandalf stated " My view is very straight-forward...Just as defense of the nation against foreign and domestice enemies is a government function, defense of the nation against disease and disability is also a function of the government."
-
Did you miss there is a Federal govt program already for both of those?
http://www.cdc.gov/
http://www.ssa.gov/disability/

Your "want" to place healthcare under the umbrella of the general welfare clause is laughable. How in all honesty can you state that taking care of peoples medical needs are above those of housing, food, and water? At least be honest with yourself and others by saying the truth, you have no idea what falls under the welfare clause you just want to force your single payer ideals on others because you WANT it, not because we need it. Typical left wing thought forcing others to do what you want.

Thank you Poohbah! You are absolutely right. And Superdave, I stand by what I say.

totellthetruth said, "I WORK with doctors who have a plan B and will walk away from their jobs at a certain time."

I appreciate your thoughtful comment and the fact you have personal knowledge of the situation doctors are in with our CURRENT healthcare system. They can choose to walk away if that want and move to France, Canada or the UK and get an increase in salary. I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF THE ACA! I think Obama chose the easy way out with a another compromise-laden, milk-toast kludge of a system and he will not have my support in 2012 because of that (and some other unrelated issues). I want to see an entire overhaul of the system to a universal, single-payer system as implemented in France, Canada and the UK. The problem with compensation for doctors is multi-faceted. Strictly looking at this as a simple compensation issue is wholly inadequate. We need to change the incentives for doctors completely. Profit is NOT a good indicator of a healthy nation. Healthy patients are a good indicator of a healthy nation. Doctors need to be paid based on the health of their patients, not on how many patients they and their clinics are able to process.

With a COMPLETE overhaul of the system, to resemble what we see in France, Canada or the UK, doctors would have opportunities to make MORE than they currently are by keeping their patients HEALTHY. And let's be honest here, you work with doctors so you have obviously seen what this CURRENT healthcare system has done to THEIR income. And you still support the current system? Wow! Look at what the power of insurance companies has done to the income levels of doctors over the last 25 years. How can any doctor support a continuation of that system?

No, I don't buy that doctors would leave under a complete overhaul of the system. But if we continue this piecemeal approach to healthcare that leaves insurance companies in the equation, yes, I can very well see why doctors would start walking away. Why not when they could move into an engineering or research job? I firmly believe the larger danger of losing doctors and other healthcare professions is if we continue the healthcare system trends of the last twenty years instead of implementing a complete overhaul of the system.

@dkush21: You said "Healthcare for all US Citizens is a necessity, not a want". So is food. Do we want the gubmint to provide free food for all? So is housing. Do we want the gubmint to provide free housing for all? So is clean drinking water. Do we want the gubmint to provide free clean drinking water for all? Even if the dregs of society waste much of what is given to them?
A friend of mine worked in Madison. Told me about the "projects", where everything was "free". In the coldest part of the winter, some of the residents there turned up the thermostat to MAX and when it got too hot for their level of comfort, they just opened a window or two. Your tax dollars at "work". No good deed goes unpunished. And the last (true) cliche - there is no such thing as a free lunch. And how do you feel about the energy waste BTW? I assume you are into "green" thinking, regardless of the consequences or the logic.

I will go onto to say that this is something that God would expect from us so called "good christians".

Healthcare for all US Citizens is a necessity, not a want. This is one of the things that we SHOULD be paying for. There is so much other garbage that we are paying for with our taxes that we can live without.

Most people don't go to the hospital or doctor if they know something is wrong because they don't want to put their family into a financial crisis if they can't afford insurance. It's either paying for their mortgage and keeping a roof over their families head, feeding them, paying the bills, etc. It has nothing to do with people not wanting to take care of themselves, it's just they can't afford it. And NO ONE should have to be put into the position of just sitting back and hoping for the best if there is something seriously wrong with them. Insurance companies have become greedy. Our government should start capping what insurance companies charge or removing the middle man entirely. You are playing with people's lives here. This is serious. There should be no debate whatsoever on this crisis.

NoLeftist, I have two questions for you.

1) You had an opinion on a highly technical, 215 page document in less than one hour after I provided the document. You criticized reports like this saying, "Giving healthcare rankings as a measure of the effectiveness of our healthcare system is a joke. Those healthcare rankings measure the overall health of the population, not the effectiveness of treating people after they're sick."

My first question is: did you read the document to see how they measured healthcare ranking to form your own opinion OR did you borrow some other person's opinion instead of forming your own?

2) I have provided you with measures of healthcare ranking and spending and none of them satisfy you.

My second question is: Which study do you recommend that we use to compare healthcare rankings and per capita spending between the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and France?

Unfortunately charecterizing a nationalized healthcare system as agressive or assaults is wrong on its front. Such language to charecterize it is just wrong. Of course the fact that you are a libertarian, you probably believe heroin should be legal and we would be better off with no government whatsoever too. I understand the libertarian mind set, unfortunately if we are to live in a SOCIETY of decent people it just doesnt work Libertarian line of thinking may work for you but as a society not so much.

NoLeftist said, "Those healthcare rankings measure the overall health of the population, not the effectiveness of treating people after they're sick."

You are DEAD WRONG on your assessment of what the WHO report measures. You really need to read it before spouting off about what YOU THINK it measures. Or would you rather that I copy and paste what it measures so everyone else can see how wrong you are?

F&R4D: Well, I do give you credit for realizing that you should NOT have asked that question. Your inane deflections and unjustified defensiveness are proof enough. We both know that following this to its logical conclusion would surely expose the false premises underlying your deeply held beliefs. That's usually what happens whenever one starts with a belief and then looks for premises to support its predetermined conclusions.

Yes, I stand behind every single word of my 12:25 comment. Self-righteous arrogance is how I characterize anyone able to rationalize acts of aggression or assaults against others. You have implicitly confirmed where you stand so we are done here.

So many canards, only so many shells!

If the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy is health care (and it isn't, as correlation is not causation, but that's for another day) then it should be no problem to prove that ObamaCare will reduce them. Of course, nobody has explained how ObamaCare will reduce them, and that's because it won't. Which of course, is why there is no study to prove that it will.

Giving healthcare rankings as a measure of the effectiveness of our healthcare system is a joke. Those healthcare rankings measure the overall health of the population, not the effectiveness of treating people after they're sick. That's like saying you should never go to an inner city hospital because the people that live around it are all unhealthy.

Of course, the opposite is true: Canadians, Frenchmen and British all come here when they need really good healthcare. Have you ever heard anyone say "I'm flying to Canada to get an operation?" Never!

Do any of you ever do any critical thinking? If you did, you wouldn't look so silly in making such lame arguments. Question your leftist masters and the truth (aka subterfuge) shall set you free!

NoLeftist and RAF, you can use your subertfuge all you want, but various sources demonstrate better healthcare outcomes in France, Canada and the United Kingdom than the United States. AND, they do this while spending considerably less per capita than the United States. This World Health Orgnaization's World Health Report is one of the most exhaustive collections of healthcare data ever assembled. Take a look for yourself.

Source: [ http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2000/en/wh... ]

Annex Table 8 Per Capita Total Expenditure At Official Exchange Rate (pp 192-195)

Annex Table 10, Overall Performance (pp 209)

UNITED STATES: #1 per capita spending, #37 healthcare ranking

FRANCE: #4 per capita spending, #1 healthcare ranking

CANADA: #10 per capita spending, #30 healthcare ranking

UNITED KINGDOM: #26 per capita spending, #18 healthcare ranking

""For certain it means, NOT putting a gun to your head and taking from you what I feel more rightly belongs to someone else because, somehow, my self-righteous arrogance deludes me into that believing I have a moral right to make such decisions for others.""
What is direct about that? Condescending catch phrase at best, unless its spoken in jest, but it seems like the whole dont take from me to pay for someone ele who needs it argument. Which is just total BS. Again, I am game for discussion, just on a real level. If you want to be condescending , I would say that you and RAF are playing the same game.

The Golden rule as I understand it is "Do unto others as you would do unto yourself." If you call paying taxes and living in society "holding a gun to your head" and equating it to theft, then I guess we have some anger problems dont we? Death and taxes, cant escape either one, no matter how many tea parties you want to have.

Your "directness" as you put it fool, I see as condescention. Again, other than that what point is it you are trying to make? Playing words isnt really being direct. So um, waste of time? Maybe you could skip all the condescending answers and get right to your.....directness as you put it.
Am I misinterpreting what you wrote? Dunno, but I am used to Indirect directness on here all the time, so yours really deosnt stand out, to me...

If you want to have a discussion about health care like poobah I am more than game, if you would rather speak in catch phraseology, that is a waste of my time.
Trolling? I would consider trolling to be something I do for Walleyes on Kosh, or what many of the conservative repeaters do on these blogs with repetetive 1-3 line blow offs, didnt think that was you. Unless again I am misinterpreting your directness.

Bankruptcy? Persaonal bankruptcy - NUMBER 1 cause in the US? Health care!! Pretty pathetic for the "greatest country on Earth" dont you think??

F&R4D: Maybe you should re-read your own question and my direct response to it. If you are incapable of responding with equal directness then do not waste my time with transparent trolling and deflection.

NoLeft you have me all wrong, I am not infavor of the ACA. I happen to believe that the only way to fixx our system is to nationalize it, take the corrupt private insurance companies out. ACA just hands them 50 million new subsidized customers.
So then you are saying that the violent crime rate is higher here than all countries with nationalized health care? BTW lets just be clear that violent crime has very little to do with mortality rate as even though the rates are higher here than in other countries , that still wouldnt have the effect that you are suggesting, so try again.
Our murder rate is high here because our poverty rate is high, and our poverty rate has been rising for decades. We are and always will be a racist, segregated nation who judges people by how they look and what they have, until that changes we will never improve. this whole throw the poor out with the bathwater approach that so many crazed far right wing lunatics hold so dear is adding to the problem, not detracting from it. Is it a coincedence that the most conservative states in this country have the lowest living standards and are the most segregated?
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arizona. The only reason I dont throw Texas and Nevada in there is because of a few large cities and in Texas there are enough universities to keep that state completely out of the toilet.

Of course people get murdered everywhere, but do they get murdered at the same rate in all countries? Of course not! Thus, you have to control for it (if you want the numbers to be meaningful). Unless, of course, you already have a prejudice, which you lefties pride yourselves on not having.

Oh yeah, that's another easy one for you to produce stats on: that ObamaCare will reduce bankruptcies. That should be real easy.

noLeft- I forgot that the USA is the only nation on Earth where people get murdered thanks for clearing that up. Keep on reaching buddy, maybe with one of your condescending comments you may find a point, I'm still waiting.

BTW I also like how believing that all people deserve decent health care without affordability even being a part of the equation makes you "self-richeous and arrogant" , and all this time I thought it made me a human being. You potato I say.....

Uh, those mortality stats weren't adjusted for violence. Neither was life expectancy. Thus, if I got shot to death, that would somehow be an indictment of our healthcare system.

Per capita costs weren't adjusted for differences in per capita income between the countries either.

Sloppy sloppy sloppy! Go back to your left wing web sites and get those stats adjusted to be meaningful to the conversation at hand.

Of course, I issued just such a challenge yesterday to the other site pest and he said to go look at the CIA website, which was as useful as ESPN's discussion about Peyton Manning.

I'll wait for you to find and present those adjusted numbers. No rush, as I'll just be listening to the crickets while also waiting on any study that shows ObamaCare will lower costs and improve outcomes.

""Less government = MORE FREEDOM!""
Maybe you should say : More private, unregulated insurance= MORE BANKRUPTCY

""For certain it means, NOT putting a gun to your head and taking from you what I feel more rightly belongs to someone else because, somehow, my self-righteous arrogance deludes me into that believing I have a moral right to make such decisions for others.""
Huh?
I was talking about health care, maybe you can enlighten me as to how providing adequate afforable care for all Americans is "holding a gun" to anyone's head? A little to hyperbolic for me.
That being said, what about the vast majority of Americans that cannot afford health care in this country Fool? What about the middle class folks that pay thie premiums only to be denied coverage by the private insurance company,to whom they have, in good faith, paid their premiums to? The current system seems to favor the very wealthy only. If you are poor, you really dont have a choice. Wait till you get really sick and reprt to an ER? Is that freedom? Hows about middle class families stricken with a catastrphic disease or accident? Now the years of paid premiums are met with in many situations bills not covered? When you pay for a service dont you expect the company to follow through on their end of the bargain? When purchasing insurance arent you doing so "in case of" emergency? SO now if you get cancer and your insurance doesnt want to cover you, NOW you are bankrupt? Sounds like a model to me.
Maybe my idea of the Golden Rule and yours are different, mine is something that Jesus Chhrist taught, yours seems to be something you may see in a naughty movie.

I think the Supreme Court is going to make lots of conservatives very unhappy with their ACA ruling and we're going to hear new cries of "conservative activist judges."

And those who are denied coverage because of some pre-existing condition, Ezoner?

And those who can not afford it, Ezoner? Have you been reading about Chief Justice Roberts and his staunch support of pertinent commerce clauses? You should. I think you'd gauge your comments a bit more wisely.

"Anyone know what the Golden Rule is??"

For certain it means, NOT putting a gun to your head and taking from you what I feel more rightly belongs to someone else because, somehow, my self-righteous arrogance deludes me into that believing I have a moral right to make such decisions for others.

In the end -- Obamacare will be declared unconstitutional and the next repub will repeal it. Its a done deal and will be gone.

Socialized care does not work better for all. A one size fits all solution will not work. Those that chose to take care of themselves with regular visits will continue to do so. Those that wont go to the doctor (for whatever reason) will continue to avoid care. Those tricking the system will have an even greater ability to fraud the system. The people that will lose are the common general population that gets care today -- and now will be on a waiting list as doctors become frustrated (already happening by the way) with the government regulation and paperwork and the standard one shoe fits all care. Those that are rich will STILL get specialized care by paying privately for that care. All others will be dumped into the same bucket.

No data can refute that position. Data can and will be manipulated just as the Global warming data was. Just as pollution data is. It is all a business interest and special interest politics that are driving the far left. We need less government -- not more.

Yeah, that is so true, fear. They eventually let the truth slip out in bits and pieces and then we piece it together for them. It takes time.

Go get 'em fear and Gandalf. Grrrrrrrrrr

Poobah- its amazing how hard it is for people to refute statistics with facts. Rhetoric seems to work , but when prsented with numerical facts like life-expectancy and infant mortality, and per capita cost? crickets....

Does the department of HHS call it ObamaCare or did you just throw that in there? We dont "pay" for it TTT, the insurance companies will be covering it. Of course covering contraceptives as opposed to unwanted pregnancies, abortions, or a lifetime of doctors appts and services for in many cases unwanted , unplanned for kids living in Poverty?
What I find funniest about this uproar about contraceptives is that most conservatives are Pro-life, if so why wouldnt you support anything to help decrease unwanted pregnancies? Wouldnt that be in the best interest of Pro-life people? I would certainly think so.
This whole notion of "we pay for this" when it comes to contraception , because of insurance regulation, is hilarious to me. Insurance companies will incur millions in savings because of these regulations, common sense should tell you that. Conservatives shouldnt let the Catholic church dictate policy decisions for them. Using contraceptives is a choice? Sure , but probably the largest commonsense choice a person should make. Maybe the conservatives wil continue to push abstinence education? That is a real common sense solution!! Just tell people to not have sex, a far better solution, right?

Anyone know what the Golden Rule is??

""Please provide your position on where it will stop...doing good has no end.""
Aparantly being selfish and greedy doesn't either.
I also love all of these fringe far-right wingers that claim to know exactly where the founding fathers stand on every single issue, makes me laugh. I myself wonder what the "founders" would think of America being ruled by large multi-national corporations similar to the British Empire. Similarities? The very wealthy minority holding almost unbreakable power over the very large minority? OR should we consider that the founders were a bunch of slave owners that didn't want to pay taxes? I guess we could interpret the past just about any way we want to, I still love the tea partiers like RAF and others using the founders and the constitution( a document composed almost 250 years ago) as a crutch to support these hysterical socialistic arguments.
News flash, socialized medicine would not be the end of America as we know it. Why does anyone think that the current system of private insurance is at all effective? Maybe when youre wealthy, but certainly not if your poor. Fact of the matter is this, EVERY person in this country will use the health care system in their lives, therefore everyone should pay for it. Businesses should not be burdened with providing health care for their employees! They have enough to worry about.

Facts point out that we need to move towards a healthier , more efficient system. Socialized medicine costs less and works better, for all!! We can only use the STATISTICS we have available and the stats show that socialized medicine is better, despite the fear mongering from the right.

DO I feel like a governemnt run system would be perfect? Absolutely NOT!!, That being said, a group of kindygarteners could run a system better than the private insurance companies have done.

totellthetruth, if they simply postpone or ignore treating high risk patients, how do they achieve longer life expectancies in their population than we do?

totellthetruth said, "No one WANTS to work in health care under socialism. MD's and Nurses will leave their careers because the pay instantly will be dropped."

Ohhhh, this helps to explain why healthcare in the UK, France and Canada is 1/2 the cost it is here!!! All of the healthcare professionsls have quit!!! No doctors, nurses, administrators, etc. Brilliant, totellthetruth!! Be sure to tell NoLeftist. He is looking for findings like this.

But wait.... How do they achieve better outcomes without healthcare professionals than we do with healthcare professionals?

gandalf stated "health care is...a function of the government to provide for the 'general welfare', in terms of the Constitution"
-
LOL what a lame attempt to rationalize your desire for a national program by ineptly declaring it fits under some magic umbrella placed there by our forefathers waiting to fill you goodybag with all your wants vs your needs.

Why stop there, why not mandate a national mandatory clothing program, mandatory food program, mandatory job program, mandatory housing program, mandatory water program, mandatory fitness program, mandatory transportation program, mandatory holiday program, mandatory vacation program, mandatory childcare program, mandatory nursing home program, mandatory vision program, mandatory hearing program, mandatory handyman program, and a mandatory burial program too. After all, these too fall into the SUBJECTIVE position (umbrella) welfare.

Please provide your position on where it will stop...doing good has no end.

Great, shouldn't be hard to find just one that applies the changes that didn't work where they are used to the U.S. and shows they will work. I have looked and couldn't find one.

Interesting how nobody on this string even makes a pretense of supporting ObamaCare: they quickly have to run off to some other never-never land now that the country has seen how bad their last great money-saving idea worked.

Great, glad to hear you're looking! There's tons of data that have been analyzed and many studies showing the cost savings and outcome improvements based on the experiences of the UK, Canada and France.

Looking for a study that says that implementing the British or Canadian models that yield higher price increases and lower care quality than the U.S. does will yield lower cost increases and higher care quality when it's implemented here in the U.S.

NoLeftist, what are you waiting for? You have the three largest, real world studies ever conducted going on as you wait! You'll never find any study with as much value as looking at the experience of the United Kingdom, Canada and France. The data is all there and has been analyzed and re-analyzed a thousand times by everyone who is anything to the healthcare debate. Sunlight is burning; get on it!

I mean, it's REAL WORLD DATA! Not anything like that opinion editorial you cited.

Good morning, donnaw! I think your March 19, 12:23 p.m. comment is representative of your contribution to this discussion.

Still waiting...

poo...you wouldn't know the truth even if it was included in your monthly govt dole check. You are clueless.

2 year anniversary of Obama Scare!

It is very fitting that Paul Ryan presented a plan for a budget today.

"I might take you out on the boat for a relaxing morning ride."
-
You skipped right past the part where I never want to be anywhere around you on a body of water let alone in the same boat.

NoLeftist, take a look at costs and outcomes in Canada, United Kingdom and France. The truth shall set you free.

Now be nice, RAF. That statement was meant as your cue to let it be. You can't win the healthcare battle when you're paying twice as much as people in universal plans with superior outcomes. Let it be.

A whole day and you still can't find any study which shows the US will spend less under ObamaCare (or single payer for that matter), that it will lead to higher life expectancy, or lower infant mortality? Must be because there aren't any.

Oh, the stats you wanted?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/15/...

"This is where this all started and it should be where it ends."
-
Yes that is what you want. As we can see using your same logic to other funded activites shows the weakness of your position...no wonder you want to avoid it.

Thank you for your permission to feel better, RAF. I already feel better to see that my data were met only with more rhetoric and that no data were presented to challenge them. If I thought I could keep you from talking politics, I might take you out on the boat for a relaxing morning ride. We could talk about the weather...but probably not about anthropogenic global warming. :-)

"The United States "nationalized education system" as you like to call it, our K-12 public schools paid for by TAXPAYERS, clearly does not spend the most per student of any nation in the world, coming in fourth as I had stated."
-
Clearly taking slivers of data instead of the whole picture is a problem for you.

"you have included privately funded schools and schools which receive significantly more revenues from students, endowments and other sources than from TAXPAYERS and which clearly are not part of your "nationalized education system" that is "govt run"
-
Your data for healthcare also includes privately funded revenues by patients...but wait you want to include this because it makes your point. I have no issue with the inclusion because it is a cost, I find it rather hypocritical of you to pick and choose from one topic but not the other...typical of you.

"Yet you chose to include the costs of these colleges in your data. Why?"
-
For the slow learners...because they receive tax payer funding; both directly and indirectly. If the receive something that means it comes as a cost, in other words an outlay or expense. Most people understand nothing is free.

"our educational system is NOT nationalized"
-
Really?

http://www.ed.gov/

No2 the funniest part of your choice of exclusion I see only falls for data you don't like. The link for your healthcare numbers also includes retail sales, private care, private hospitals, and other private funded medical services...yet you want all that data INCLUDED to fit your preconceived conclusion to make your socialist argument.

Consistency of positions has never been your strong suit.

No2 interestingly how you want to pull out schools that receive large amounts of tax dollars and tax payer support, directly and indirectly through state and federal agencies in the attempt to make your data relevant. In the real world, real people use real data. In you warped view I understand you want to use slivers of data otherwise your socialist ideals fall to pieces...whatever makes you feel better, go ahead. I on the other hand will look at the whole picture when it comes to spending money in this nation and will look at the big picture when I make my point that nationalizing healthcare, single payer, obamacare (pick your choice of words) is the wrong approach and will end up costing more money than is spent today.

Now that it's clear that there's not hardly a nit's worth of difference in public K-12 per student spending between the top five highest spending countries, I will return to my point that the difference in healthcare spending per capita is huge. The United States spends DOUBLE the average of the United Kingdom, France and Canada -- three countries with a national, universal healthcare plan. This is where this all started and it should be where it ends.

Healthcare Expenditure per Capita (2008 data) [ http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oe... ]

United Kingdom $3,129, France $3,677, Canada $4,079, UNITED STATES $7,538

RetiredAirForce on Mar 18, 2012 at 3:46 p.m. said, "I love the critiques from the left over this countries spending per person with claims it will be cheaper if ran by govt as a single payer. Ironically this nation also spends the most on education per student and that is govt run."

"govt run." Remember those words.

RetiredAirForce on Mar 19, 2012 at 2:31 p.m. said, "The same group that cry healthcare spending per person in our nation is too high using that as justification to fully nationalize it skip right passed how this nations nationalized education system spends more per student than any other nation."

"Nationalized education system." Remember those words.

"govt run" and "nationalized education system." From your two statements, we can surely eliminate private educational institutions - they are not government run. So why did you choose to include data (your $15,000 number) for colleges that are privately funded? We can also eliminate all local and state educational institutions - they are not nationalized. What does that leave us with -- nothing. Ooops. Gandalf eloquently pointed this out, your first error, that our educational system is NOT nationalized. Let's forget you erred in saying our educational system is nationalized and only that you meant our PUBLIC K-12 educational system receives some of its funding and directives from the federal government. Despite some funding, it is still not run by the federal government. The cost of K-12 public schools is borne by taxpayers and students have a right to access those schools free of charge. Colleges are NOT totally funded by taxpayers, they are not run by the federal government and nobody has a right to access them free of charge -- students pay substantial tuition and other costs. Yet you chose to include the costs of these colleges in your data. Why? They surely are not a part of your "nationalized education system" where the TAXPAYERS pay and everyone is guaranteed free access as they are to our public K-12 schools.

By choosing to include tertiary education (college) you have included privately funded schools and schools which receive significantly more revenues from students, endowments and other sources than from TAXPAYERS and which clearly are not part of your "nationalized education system" that is "govt run."

Looking at Chart B1.2 of your data [ http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/18/48630... ] you see that Luxembourg, Norway, Iceland and Denmark have higher per student PRIMARY EDUCATION per student spending than the United States. You also see that Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland have higher SECONDARY EDUCATION per student spending than the United States.

The United States "nationalized education system" as you like to call it, our K-12 public schools paid for by TAXPAYERS, clearly does not spend the most per student of any nation in the world, coming in fourth as I had stated.

No2 stated "If you think my numbers are incorrect for the few countries I listed then quit moaning about it and show us what YOU think the correct numbers are"
-
I did. I also stated numerous times you had provided slivers of the data, not all the data.

"But until that time, we are using the number that is covered by taxpayers "
-
Again with more ignorant and false information. The majority of colleges in this nation are state run [govt run]. The vast majority of colleges in this nation receive funding from tax payers. Not to mention the current administration has now nationalized college loans, backed by the tax payers. Many of the private colleges also enjoy tax-deductible donations and a significant amount of federal grant money. Just because you fail to grasp the full cost of education in no way makes anything I provided wrong.

The very idea the left must admit the largest argument used to push single payer, cost per user vs other nations, is also true for our education system that is already govt run shows the point is lost and not a good reason to change.

RAF said, "The bottom line is we spend more in this nation per student for education than any other country as I stated."

That simply is not true. Once the United States starts paying the costs of, and guarantees free access to, tertiary education (college) with taxpayer dollars, you can use your $15,000 number. But until that time, we are using the number that is covered by taxpayers and guaranteed to all citizens (K-12). Let's see your K-12 costs RAF for the four countries I provided. We all know what they will show and that's why you continue with your charades instead of simply giving us those four numbers.

RAF, does the subterfuge and distraction from the fact that you used data that includes COLLEGE education costs ever end? Just admit what you tried pulling over on people and be done with it! If you think my numbers are incorrect for the few countries I listed then quit moaning about it and show us what YOU think the correct numbers are and we'll see if the numbers you come up with from OECD changes anything in the order of costs that I provided. You know they won't so you keep trying to distract people with your nonsense. It doesn't work any longer, RAF. People are wise to your tactics.

Poor No2, my data was accurate and current all along. The link I provided also broke down all types of data costs individually. The numbers I supplied in the post were total costs because that is relevant showing true cost per student for education in this country. If I wanted to pick and chose I could have just shown tertiary education alone which this country spends 2x the average for all nations. The bottom line is we spend more in this nation per student for education than any other country as I stated. You decided ineptly to prove me wrong, you failed; big surprise.

No2 stated "I used current data, the most current available. The data is no older than the data you are pointing to."
-
I will gladly point out your lies for you. Your link http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_sp... clearly states "SOURCE: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001)"

The link I provided clearly states it is from the OECD 2011 edition with data sets from 2008 in most parts.

RAF, hahaha, your $15,000 number includes tertiary education (COLLEGE)!!!!!! It also includes meals, transportation AND housing!!! If anyone cares to see how RAF dug up some numbers to make it look like his rhetoric was factual, go to the following document and look at chart B1.1: [ http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/18/48630... ]

You are a real gem, RAF.

RAF quipped, "Specifically your old data to the real current data Country - OLD(YOURS) - NEW(CURRENT) US - $6043.00 - $15,000.00 Austria - $6065.00 - $12,000.00"

You're dead wrong on every count in your most recent post. We both used OECD data. I used current data, the most current available. The data is no older than the data you are pointing to. To say that the costs I cited have increased to 12,000 and 15,000 is a huge inaccuracy on your part. An obvious and deliberate attempt to befuddle readers. It won't work. The numbers I gave are absolutely correct. And what is your sudden fascination with Austria? Give it up RAF.

No2 I gave you all day to save face and find your own error in data and link you provided; the one I told you was a sliver of data. You ignorantly ignored and stubbornly backed yourself into another corner proving once again you are nothing more than an echo machine and not a person capable of thought. The link you provided, the one you wrongly stated was from the same source (data) as mine has 2 glaring errors. One, your linked data is almost a decade old and two does not include all costs; as I said just a sliver.

If you took the time to look before leaping, a habit you have, you could have seen both these glaring errors.

The link I provided shows the latest whole data sets from the source and contains all the numbers, not slivers.

Specifically your old data to the real current data
Country - OLD(YOURS) - NEW(CURRENT)
US - $6043.00 - $15,000.00
Austria - $6065.00 - $12,000.00

The above numbers are for public schools only and Switz, Norway, and Denmark don't break out expenses from public and private. Even when including public with private spending per student Switz is the same level as US spending per student based only on public spending.

Gandalf if it wasnt for the US constitution and bill of rights limiting the grasp of govt on the people there would be no freedom. The military is a function of govt to protect the nation.

Poobah is on the offensve today! Excellent!!

officerfriendly1, I don't think you should rely on two paragraphs written by someone else to demonstrate that you think you understand socialism and communism or the differences between them. One thing is for sure; when you take the work of other people, without attributing the work to them, that is called plagiarism and it is very unethical.

Your 6:21 p.m. and 6:23 p.m. comments were plagiarized from: wiseGEEK [ http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-diff... ]

EVERY U.S. citizen should have healthcare. Period! We have millions of people who have no health insurance whatsoever. This is not right. MAKE medical insurance affordable for everyone. Almost every other country has universal healthcare. Leave it up to the US to spend money on stupid and unecessary things instead of things that are important and necessary. Education, policemen, firemen, and healthcare are several things that are a necessity.

Gandalf, thank you for the links you've provided and for your informed opinions on healthcare and education issues.

RhetoricAndFripper said, "No2 as i said you took slivers of the data."

Well, Raffy, if you are unhappy with the "slivers" of data I've used from the source you cited, why don't you produce data from the same source you cited that you think would prove my data inaccurate? Any data in particular you'd like to point out? Speak up, we're not getting any younger.

No2 as i said you took slivers of the data.

NoLeftist said, "You are very clever in laying out the problems with the current system without ever saying your solutions will fix them. Obama does the same thing. Instead, you leave that to the reader to infer, and then when pressed, quickly run to another subject like CIA websites."

I used the same data source that you finally came around to -- the OECD. As for my solutions, I guess you either didn't read my 8:56 p.m. post from last night or failed to comprehend it. I leave very little for you to infer from that post.

You also said, "I've got time." You should probably use some of it to take a reading comprehension course.

RhetoricAndFrippery said, "Typical of No2, providing pieces of information..."

Funny thing is, Raffy, the data that I cited earlier came from the same source you just cited for me -- the OECD. You and NoLeftist are catching on...just a dime short and almost a day late.

NoLeftist said, "Health spending growth per capita growth rate 1991 - 2001: Britain 4.1%, U.S. 3.1%, Australia 4.1%"

Are you kidding? You asked for 1990 to present. So I gave you that data. You didn't like the results so now you're cherry-picking 1991-2001? That's 10-20 year old data! Let's stick with your 1990 to present or the 2000 to present. It is much more relevant than data that is only 10 to 20 years old. And why are you bringing Australia into this? I gave you the data...healthcare cost increases are lower in the United Kingdom, Canada and France than in the United States and the trend is getting WORSE for the United States over the last decade.

And now that you cited the same data I had cited, let's take look at Exhibit 1. When the researchers adjusted the data as a percentage of US healthcare spending (that's the second column for those who a columnar challenged) we see the United Kingdom spends 41% per capita of the United States. And Australia spends 51%. Now why don't you take a good long break, along with RAF, and come up with your next approach to discredit the truth.

Health spending growth per capita growth rate 1991 - 2001: Britain 4.1%, U.S. 3.1%, Australia 4.1%

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content...

Doh!

Still waiting for you to point out any study which shows the US will spend less under ObamaCare (or single payer for that matter), that it will lead to higher life expectancy, or lower infant mortality.

You are very clever in laying out the problems with the current system without ever saying your solutions will fix them. Obama does the same thing. Instead, you leave that to the reader to infer, and then when pressed, quickly run to another subject like CIA websites.

I've got time.

Gandalf your perception lacks clarity in relation to the federal involvement in education. More specifically if you know your idea to be true you seriously need to question the administration you voted for and ask where the 100 billion went to that the president authorized them to spend in fy11.

RAF, I would simply refer you to Gandalf's 3:21 p.m. comment that indubitably corrects your frippery about a "nationalized education system."

Typical of No2, providing pieces of information then ineptly declaring coclusions on slivers of data. There are many sources that show the whole picture http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3746,en... is but only one of them.

No2 a more glaring point is how you still ignore how much is spent in this nation per student on education in comparison to others while ignoring it is already govt run and already costs so much. Making irresponsible claims that turning our country to a nationalized healthcare would reduce costs ignores how everything in this nation that is govt run already cost too much.

fool_on_the_hill, your genius is a delectation.

RAF said, "The same group that cry healthcare spending per person in our nation is too high using that as justification to fully nationalize it skip right passed how this nations nationalized education system spends more per student than any other nation."

Of course, RAF didn't really mean to say that. He knows the United States is ranked fourth in education spending per capita in the world behind Denmark, Switzerland and Austria. [ http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_sp... ] And what RAF won't tell you is that the United States is tied at 99% literacy rates with those countries that spend more than we do. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou... ]

Back to the drawing board for you, too, Raffy!

NoLeftist, I took your suggestion and looked up the growth of healthcare costs and made sure it was adjusted (as a share of GDP) for you.

Percentage Point Change in Total Health Expenditure as a Share of GDP, U.S. and Selected Countries, by Decade (1990-2008). [ http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/im... ]

United Kingdom 2.8%, France 2.8%, Canada 3.5%, UNITED STATES 3.8%

And if you care to get an idea of the trend, take a look at the data from 2000 to 2008, instead of 1990 to 2008:

France 1.1%, Canada 1.6%, United Kingdom 1.7%, UNITED STATES 2.6%

Those "socialist" healthcare plans are doing a much better job of containing costs and providing superior healthcare outcomes than our patchwork quilt of private insurance is doing.

Still reality is skipped over. The same group that cry healthcare spending per person in our nation is too high using that as justification to fully nationalize it skip right passed how this nations nationalized education system spends more per student than any other nation. Typical lunacy.

Oh brother, thanks to Obama we now have more debt then our entire economy.
Rules for radicals: collapse the economy from within.
The debt ceiling debate will be a factor again come Sept/Oct and we have had it with Obama's spending.

U.S. spending not adjusted for per capita income differences is higher than other countries like Canada and Britain. Thus, we need to institute a single-payer system that has yielded higher cost increases than our own over the last 25 years in order to control costs.

On top of that, the the U.S. mortality rate not adjusted for violent deaths is higher than some other countries and the CIA has websites and Peyton Manning is going to the Broncos.

THAT'S WHY WE NEED SINGLE PAYER HEALTH INSURANCE.

Got it.

Poobah: Good one. Always remember that Goodall never used force to impose her own world view, as arguably superior as that may have been. ;-D

Think of what you've just stipulated to, NoLeftist. That the USA has a lower cost of increase per capita and despite that "fact" is STILL spending more than twice the average per capita of those three countries. Back to the drawing board you go.

"There are many studies showing that growth in Medicare health care spending is significantly lower than the growth of health care spending in the private insurance sector."

Well of course there are because it's a fact. I'm sure you've also seen the studies that show that as Medicare and Medicaid spending goes down, or up slower than overall medical CPI, private insurance rates go up higher than they otherwise would have because the hospitals and doctors have to make up for the fact that the government doesn't even cover their costs. This is called "cost shift." You can look it up yourself.

As far as the spurious implication that single payer systems reduce the increases in healthcare costs, guess which country has the lowest growth rate in per capita health care costs since 1990?

A. United States,
B. Canada, or
C. Great Britain.

You can look it up yourself.

Do you guys ever do anything other than unquestionably lap up whatever gruel is being handed out at the left wing intellectual soup lines?

Leftist site? The CIA? You couldn't have possibly read the KFF report in that short time. And how will you explain those countries having a HIGHER standard of living than the USA, making their per capita healthcare expenditures even LESS as a percentage of income than the USA? Nice try, but you should really know the answers to your questions before asking then in such an adversarial fashion.

NoLeftist, you seem to have a reading comprehension issue. The Affordable Care Act is NOT what I propose. As I have repeatedly stated, I want a nationwide, single-payer healthcare plan. Increased costs are inevitable in this patchwork quilt of privately insured inferior healthcare services that Congress has slapped together.

Huh, I just did. Guess what, they're not adjusted for those things. What are the odds?

Any more less than worthless facts you can share? I see that Peyton Manning is going to Denver. That fact is as pertinent as your posts to the subject at hand.

Otherwise, go crawl back to your leftist site echo chambers where critical thinking is a drawback.

While you're at it, given the stated problem that we spend too much on healthcare, could you please also explain how ObamaCare will reduce overall U.S. spending on healthcare? Maybe provide some studies along those lines?

From everything I've seen, from the hundreds of billions in new taxes, it seems we'll be spending more, but maybe I missed something.

NoLeftist, I cited my sources. You can read.

How do you know Obama is lying?

..his mouth is open

Is the cost per capita figure adjusted for the differences in the countries' per capita income? Since you're so smart, I'm sure you thought of this, but I just wanted to make sure.

Along those same lines, are the stats you gave for life expectancy controlled for deaths by violence? I mean, if I get shot to death, is that counted in the mortality stats that you are using to gauge the quality of healthcare?

On the outside chance your stats aren't controlled for these things due to ignorance or worse, it would be helpful for the rest of us if you could provide such adjusted numbers that were actually pertinent to the issue at hand.

officerfriendly1 said, "Socialism is not a fancy term for hanging out with your friends. It's government sanctioned theft."

The United States spends more than TWICE the average per capita spending on healthcare of Canada, United Kingdom and France. Please tell us, officerfriendly1, who is the thief responsible for this?

Healthcare Expenditure per Capita (2008 data) [ http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oe... ]

United Kingdom $3,129, France $3,677, Canada $4,079, UNITED STATES $7,538

Surely spending all of that money must mean we have longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates, right? Wrong!

Life Expectancy rank (CIA Factbook, 2011 data)

Canada #12, France #13, United Kingdom #28, UNITED STATES #50

Infant Mortality rank (CIA Factbook, 2009 data)

France #11, United Kingdom #35, Canada #41, UNITED STATES #49

totellthetruth said, " No one WANTS to work in health care under socialism. MD's and Nurses will leave their careers because the pay instantly will be dropped."

That has not been the experience in the UK, France and Canada.

RhetoricAndFalderal said, "No2 declaring all socialists are liberal proves my point on your inability to think."

You're like donnaw now, RAF, attributing things to me that I never said. Can you quote (correctly and without making it up like donnaw does) where I declared that?

No2 declaring all socialists are liberal proves my point on your inability to think.

fool_on_the_hill, do you think Goodall was suggesting that the only motive for dialectical thinking is maintaining a sense of righteous superiority?

Yes, you have it right now, NoLeftist. It's very much a bi-partisan effort. RAF, wrong again. Study after study has shown the more liberal, the higher the IQ. donnaw, it's not nice to lie about what others have said.

"Notice how both clans maintain their sense of righteous superiority based on the other clan's flaws?", Jane Goodall whispered to the visitor.

poo...try Forbes or google any other source and you will find the same thing. And you are the one denying what you said. You are living in denial!

Republicans signed on to the doc fix, so it is OK for Obama to say he will cut half a trillion from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare even though he really won't, thereby adding half a trillion in debt to our children.

Got it.

No2. Since you are only an echo mechanism of socialist wants placing the verb "think" into a sentence declaring you have this abilty would be blatantly false.

donnaw, there's no need to yell and there's no need to lie, not once but twice, about what I said. The Daily Caller for CBO numbers....seriously.

NoLeftist said, 'Well, previous balanced budget efforts resulted in cuts to Medicare reimbursement to doctors and hospitals, but they are overridden every year through the "doc fix."'

And with Republicans in control of the House, how was that "doc fix" overridden? Oh, of course. Silly me, with Republican support! Lemmings! Lemmings everywhere!

You really like to avoid dealing with obvious.
1) did you even go back and look at your posting on 3/16? It's there for everyone to see so denying it is pointless.
2) your referral to the CBO report DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL THE COSTS BUT ONLY THE COSTS FOR ONE SEGMENT OF THE BILL! ADD THE TOTAL COST FOR THE BILL AND IT IS DOUBLE WHAT OBAMA SIAD IT WOULD BE!

RAF said, 'A much more accurate statement would be, "In the socialist world I want there should only be one program for all, because I think that is fair".'

Hard to argue with your opinion on that, RAF, that is if you replace "want" with "think." I guess the word "want" just kind of popped out; a RAFian slip if you will.

The CBO numbers are a complete joke and everyone knows it. They rely on the assumption that the government will really cut $500 billion from Medicare, which is a sham of the highest order.

How do I know this? Well, previous balanced budget efforts resulted in cuts to Medicare reimbursement to doctors and hospitals, but they are overridden every year through the "doc fix."

So if you were to believe Obama, he plans on cutting half a trillion dollars from Medicare reimbursement to hospitals and doctors through ObamaCare, even though he refuses to do it for previous laws because the cuts would hurt services.

Meanwhile, the mainstream liberal media never poses any question that might shine light on the issue because they are a bunch of sycophants.

Obama is treating all you lefties like the lemming idiots you are!

donnaw said, "I got my numbers from The Daily Caller..."

You should probably get CBO numbers from the CBO instead of from The Daily Caller or RAF.

The new quote you attribute to me is another deliberate lie. I never said that. Could it be you're afraid it loses your perceived "put down" value by being honest and actually quoting what I really said?

No2 stated " Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration healthcare and all other state and federal healthcare programs and replace it with one nationwide plan for everyone."
-
A much more accurate statement would be, "In the socialist world I want there should only be one program for all, because I think that is fair".

RAF said, "The bottom line is this government is STILL spending based on a +3 year old baseline that has risen every year since and not been controlled through continuing resolutions or budgets."

A much more accurate statement would be that spending has increased through continuing resolutions and debt ceiling increases negotiated by, and supported by, both Republicans and Democrats alike.

I got my numbers from The Daily Caller which notes the entire cost of the bill, not just one part.

Poo..if you had read in depth the article you are referring us to for CBO estimates, you would see that that report Is on one segment of the bill, not the total program. For instance, those numbers do not include the administration of the bill.

poo..."Wis budget committee to committee to consider Medicaid changes" 3/14; your post on 3/16 at 4:46 pm. You referred to "punching your victim card."

RAF, we all know how impossible it is for you to admit when you've made a mistake. The CBO projections are right there for you to read and have not "doubled from original claims," as you previously stated.

Another position not based on personal standards "Bring tax rates back to the levels they were during some of this country's greatest growth with next to zero deficits."

Typical of the left, "lets raise everyone's taxes". The truth is they are only willing to stand behind this when MADE to. If they truly thought it would work and they believed it they would already be doing it.

No2 interesting link to the CBO. If you took the time to read the material you would see these new CLAIMS are based on a budget; something the dem senate has failed to do for the last three years. The bottom line is this government is STILL spending based on a +3 year old baseline that has risen every year since and not been controlled through continuing resolutions or budgets. Ironically the CBO numbers, from the latest presidential budget was also done last year on a budget that was voted down by every dem member of the US Senate. The sad fact is when these same comparisons are done based on existing numbers with today's spending levels my numbers are correct. Typical of the left wing on this site, deflection and obfuscation.

donnaw, I gave you the link to the CBO website with the new March 2012 cost projections that fly in the face of the numbers you listed.

I never said what you just attributed to me as a direct quote. You should be ashamed for such a blatant and deliberate lie.

janesvillean as typical, whenever you attempt to respond you do so lacking coherence and facts based on what what WAS stated. I never stated there was an error in govt run education, in the constraints of comparison to healthcare spending; but then again this is a habit for many on the left...distortion and deflection.

Since you are unable to grasp the similarities spelling out the similarities between federal level health and human services and the US Dept of education and the individual US states medicaid departments and the individual states education departments would be a waste; sarcasm deeply intended.

The error you ignorantly claimed to make was that obamacare would not be government run. It is a federal law that gives authority to the secretary of health and human services and associated non-elected boards to set and enforce rules that all Americans MUST follow. The insurance agencies and healthcare providers are then to operate under these FORCED conditions. But please pretend this is NOT run by the government.

In all your lame deflection you never once addressed the point I raised, the hypocritical nature of most of the left wing arguments over healthcare costing more per person in this country than others. These same (most) posters IGNORE the cost this nation spends per student which is the highest of all nations and that is already government run. The idiocy of the claim that a govt run single payer program will be cheaper is insane since any mass program in this country has ever been shown to save money.

According to the CBO, the cost of implementing Obamacare is $2.6 trillion over the 10 year period. Obama said in 2009 that it would be $900 billion over 10 years. Once the projections account for the full implementation the cost will probably be much greater. This will add another $700 billion to the deficit. So poo, RAF was right. The costs now are projected to be double what Obama said they would be. And poo, if telling me " you could punch my victim card"is not a put down, I don't know what is.

According to the Kaiser Institute most of the people using emergency rooms are people with chronic conditions, not the uninsured. And that won't change with Obamacare. While the uninsured make up 15% of the population, 14% of the people using the emergency room are uninsured. If a person has a chronic condition, he/she will still use the emergency room, Obamacare or no Obamacare.

Driving the increase was a rise in the percentage of Democrats who view the government as ever-more threatening.

Repeal Obamacare and replace this one-term President.

RetiredAirForce, it's hilarious how inept you (and many of your comrades) are at argument. To demonstrate that there is an error in having a government-run school system, you would need to first show a consistency of poor results. The best K-12 schools in the OECD, however, are in Finland, which is -- guess what?! -- state run as well. Thus being a government run program is by itself neither a guarantor of good or bad results.
.
More of a mystery is why you think the administration of a school system is necessarily a model for the administration of a health care system, something utterly different.
.
(Should I ask here about why we haven't privatized the military, since that is a government run program? You seem to think all government run programs are thoroughly shambolic, after all.)
.
The other error you make is in showing your ignorance of that against which you argue. You seem to think that Obamacare will be "government-run". In fact the insurance for the uninsured will in aggregate be primarily PRIVATE, supplied through the state exchanges, which will have a variety of providers competing to offer insurance on equal terms. States will be free to create single-payer plans themselves, but most are expected to have exchanges offering plans from for-profit and non-profit insurers alike. How, exactly, is that government run? If it isn't government run, how does this support your contention?

Excellent Poobah!! My compliments!!

"Health care reform was a response to the fact that more than 50 million Americans lack health insurance — and that their care in clinics and emergency rooms costs nearly $75 billion a year."

In another article [ http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-ne... ], one of donnaw's solutions was, "Those children who need medical care can go free clinics and emergency rooms..." When I pointed out the increased cost of that, she said I was calling her names...

And RAF with his disingenuous doubling of costs as projected by, what, the CPO? I think you meant the CBO, but at any rate, they NEVER said that and you know it. "CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period." [ http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43080 ]

1) Cut the defense budget by $550 billion per year and repatriate all American troops. There is no reason other than enriching ultra-wealth owners of our military-industrial complex for spending more money under the guise of "national defense" than the next TWENTY high spending countries COMBINED.

2) Bring tax rates back to the levels they were during some of this country's greatest growth with next to zero deficits.

3) Eliminate all tax loopholes and government subsidies so that effective tax rates equal published tax rates.

Take only some of the money saved by those three steps and implement a national, single-payer healthcare system that eliminates private healthcare insurance companies from the equation. No premiums, no billing for services, no co-pays, no complicated choices of drug coverage, no age restrictions, no pre-existing condition restrictions, every person covered. One plan for everyone.

1) Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration healthcare and all other state and federal healthcare programs and replace it with one nationwide plan for everyone.

2) Require pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs to the government healthcare plan at the lowest price they are sold to anyone else -- much like our current government schedules for other items.

3) Limit malpractice damages.

4) Change the incentive program for doctors to base their pay on the comparative wellness of their patients as opposed to how many patients they are able to process.

This is good business, and sooner or later in America, business will recognize it and be leading the charge for it along with your conservative friends when all of the other halfhearted schemes are exposed for what they are and the existing patchwork quilt of inferior healthcare services and obscene "defense" spending bankrupts the country.

wow...you should change your name to officermeanandstupid1.

donnaw, that is not true. Citizens United does not ony effect corporations, it effects union contributions as well. Yet the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the nation’s main union federation, said the United States should move to amend the court's ruling to effectively overturn Citizens United. Ask Republicans like Paul Ryan or Ron Johnson whether they support public financing of campaigns and then ask Tammy Baldwin or Russ Feingold the same question.

youkill...and I have never seen you protest against the unions, MoveOn.org, and the other left leaning lobby groups either. I don't think either political side wants to change the lobby rules.

donnaw, maybe you feel that way but I have never ever seen the Tea Party protest or lobby against Citizens United, Big Corpse, Big Insurance or Big Lobby. While Democrats cannot unilaterally disarm themselves during a campaign, it's mostly democrats who support legislation that would impose strict limits on campaign donations. Why is that?

Pro tip of the day: Removing the vowels from the name of RNC Chairman Reince Priebus gets you: RNC PR BS. That, my friends, is no coincidence.

I love the critiques from the left over this countries spending per person with claims it will be cheaper if ran by govt as a single payer. Ironically this nation also spends the most on education per student and that is govt run. Expecting those that want to socialize this nation to see the truth beyond their own failed agendas is asking too much.

The concept that private insurance coverage is more efficient flies in the face of the numbers. The US has higher health care costs per capita than any other industrialized nation. The Affordable Care Act offers us cost savings on some of the worst money sinks in the whole system, specifically uninsured patients who rely only on acute care (i.e. emergency rooms, or simply waiting until they have a condition like diabetes before beginning treatment). If we don't find ways to reduce these costs, then we all very much pay the price, as we have clearly been doing. It's actually cheaper to insure people, even with a subsidy, and give them preventative care. We won't get there if we are too scared of big government to implement a program, and we'll leave ourselves in the clutches of big insurance, which unlike government has a profit motive. Imagine that. Why do you think there's lobbying money against a government program that will reduce profits? Why, indeed.

youkill..I beg to differ with you. I don't want anyone, any group or any company to have undue influence thru lobbying dollars to the govt. Lobbyists should be banned. I also think campaign dollars should be very limited. The dollars being spent right now are obscene, on both sides.

It's funny how these people, mostly tea partiers, who are supposedly against Government or Obamacare seem to have no problem with Big Corpse and Big Insurance taking over government with mega contributions and lobbyists. They have no problem with Big government so long as they can use government power for themselves. The rest of us need to learn responsibility, stop with the citizen and employee organizing and instead pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.

From the article: "Historian Ballard Campbell, author of a book called "The Growth of American Government," sees all of this mostly as recycled, election-year propaganda intended to rally the Republican base. A presidential election "kicks up a lot dust on issues that intersect with the growth of government," he says. "It's an old song that I've heard over and over again."
-----
Bingo! We have a winner.

The govt bureaucratic employees want to ensure that their jobs are always needed so it is important to support those in office who agree. Therefore no govt unit will be become obsolete ever.

I love the last sentence, "can you show me a big, efficient government?"

It comes down to the fact that the government should be ran like we run our businesses; efficient, cut costs where we can, defined by "would our customer/consumer be willing to pay for this", open, honest, leaders held accountable and ran as lean as possible. The premise that the government can make better decisions about our personal lives than we can is just wrong. I'm not suggesting that the government should not play a role, but the role they play should be very limited. Of course it will come as no surprise when the people that want someone to take care of them for life and provide every service to them so they don't have to work for it, will oppose the "limited government" role and mock the comments of those that oppose their views.

Well written article.

Here's an interesting article from 2010, by none other than Christine Gates, the NC mom mentioned in the thinly disguised propaganda above. This is one PO'd mom, love her comments re: Kathleen Sebelius. For those that don't know, Kathleen Sebelius is the head of the bloated so-called "Health and Human Services", a cabinet level department that abscombs billions of our tax dollars each year. Much of the language in the Obamacare bill basically says "as determined by the secretary" (Kathleen Sebelius). In other words, the new law gives her blanket authority to determine how to administer it - this is scary stuff people!
http://caldwellteaparty.org/2010/09/22/h...

I haven't even finished reading this, but wanted to comment that it starts right out trying to define the rational people who oppose this behemoth as nutcases. "The mom from North Carolina who opposes vaccinations and dislikes doctors...". Really? She "dislikes doctors"?? Where did this NC mom say that? And where in the world does she take her kids when they're sick? You see, words have actual meanings. And when a writer subtly slips in a few words like "dislikes doctors" into a narrative, it's easy to gloss over them without realizing that you, the reader, are starting to form an opinion about these loose cannons who have the unmitigated gall to take their partisan opinions to DC and actually express them on their hand-made signs. This is neither journalism nor honest editorializing.

Good grief, indeed! This is opinion, Gazette, not "news". Not even a close call.

This article is chuck full of rational people of sound mind. ??????? good grief!

One year old and the CPO already claim the costs have doubled from original claims, what is to fear from that?