On Deck : Government Universal Health Care

[aquaadverse]

I'm curious, is there any way that a class-action suit can be filed against President Obama and other elected officials who continue to make speeches which contain statements which are false?

I hope not. The waste of resources would be huge. At a time we need tort reform, I can't think of anything worse to inflict on the court system.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

I hope not. The waste of resources would be huge. At a time we need tort reform, I can't think of anything worse to inflict on the court system.

Agreed. I believe Murtha successfully invoked some Congressional immunity defense that allowed him to falsely accuse marines of murder without repercussions. So if he can do that, I'm pretty sure there's nothing they can't say.

92bdad, politics has always been a sausage-making festival a la Sinclair's "the Jungle". I think the only recourse we have is to vomit and then vote the bums out.

[dude1394]

I kept hearing the left (and Barry) about how we spend a bunch o' dollars on health care and it doesn't make us any healthier because of longevity numbers. I wondered if someone had looked at that. Turns out they have and as expected our o'so'transparent der leader ignores it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...orm_97901.html

A hammer is a marvelous tool, but only for the right job. If you took an expensive watch to a repairman and he pulled out a hammer, you would be extremely nervous, if not aghast. Maybe he could find a way to do some good with that implement, but you would be more focused on the damage he could cause.
A similar scenario is playing out in the public anxiety over health care reform. Plenty of people think the existing system is in need of repair. But when they hear about expensive plans that require a more powerful and intrusive federal government, they fear that what is best in our approach to medicine may get smashed in the process.



What is best in our approach is the exceptional quality it provides. Americans grasp that: A 2006 poll found that 89 percent were happy with the medical care they get. But President Obama and his allies in Congress don't seem to realize how good we have it.


He says though the United States spends more per person on medical care than any other nation, "the quality of our care is often lower, and we aren't any healthier. In fact, citizens in some countries that spend substantially less than we do are actually living longer than we do."


That's one of the favorite rationales for a government-led overhaul. But it gives about as realistic a picture of American medicine as an episode of "Scrubs."


It's true that the United States spends more on health care than anyone else, and it's true that we rank below a lot of other advanced countries in life expectancy. The juxtaposition of the two facts, however, doesn't prove we are wasting our money or doing the wrong things.


It only proves that lots of things affect mortality besides medical treatment. Heath Ledger didn't die at age 28 because the American health care system failed him.


One big reason our life expectancy lags is that Americans have an unusual tendency to perish in homicides or accidents. We are 12 times more likely than the Japanese to be murdered and nearly twice as likely to be killed in auto wrecks.


In their 2006 book, "The Business of Health," economists Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider set out to determine where the U.S. would rank in life span among developed nations if homicides and accidents are factored out. Their answer? First place.


That discovery indicates our health care system is doing a poor job of preventing shootouts and drunk driving but a good job of healing the sick. All those universal-care systems in Canada and Europe may sound like Health Heaven, but they fall short of our model when it comes to combating life-threatening diseases.


Some of those foreign systems are great, as long as you don't get sick. Samuel Preston and Jessica Ho of the Population Studies Center at the University of Pennsylvania examined survival rates for lung, breast, prostate, colon and rectum cancers in 18 countries and found that Americans fared best.


The U.S. also excelled on other measures, such as surviving heart attacks for more than a year. Why? Because our doctors and patients don't take no for an answer. The researchers attribute the results to "wider screening and more aggressive treatment." Another factor is that we get quicker access to new cancer drugs than anyone else.


Critics say all those great medicines and therapies are cold comfort to Americans who lack insurance -- which by any standard is our greatest shortcoming. People without coverage are more likely to do without needed treatment or preventive care and more likely to die from disease or accidents.


But they have it better than you might think. Some 62 percent of uninsured Americans are satisfied with their medical care. That is probably because they get a lot of uncompensated treatment from the most advanced, ambitious and capable medical system in the world.


In Britain, by contrast, having guaranteed access to care doesn't mean you'll actually get it. Twenty percent of British cancer patients who might be cured become incurable while awaiting the treatment they need.


The challenge in this country is to extend coverage to the uninsured without degrading quality for everyone. With a little caution and humility, the president and Congress can find ways to achieve that goal. But first, they need to put down the hammer.

[dude1394]

About right...Of course if it were not for the "brawls" no one would be asking any questions and this cluster would be sailing through unread and uncommented on. If the dems would fix medicare and show us how it's done I think we might be onboard.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori...ing/?uniontrib

Union-Tribune Editorial

Lost in the shouting

Obama's claims for health overhaul must be substantiated

2:00 a.m. August 17, 2009
It didn't take long for the debate over President Barack Obama's push to overhaul the U.S. health care system to degenerate into a depressing brawl.



Critics of the proposal focus on non-existent “death panels,” as if Obama's main goal is to systematically kill off unhealthy, unworthy Americans. Supporters says opposition is driven by racial animus, as if there isn't a history in U.S. politics of public resistance to big changes in medical care. Both sides, ridiculously enough, accuse each other of actions with Nazi overtones.



We wish the debate would get back to the basics – specifically, two key claims routinely made by the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.



The first claim is that a health overhaul actually would save vast amounts of money in the long run. In June, the Congressional Budget Office shredded this assertion with a study showing that the two main proposals before the Senate would add $1 trillion and $1.6 trillion in debt over the next 10 years.



This led Obama and other Democratic leaders to float a series of trial ballons on what taxes might be raised to cover this gap. When each met a hostile reception from rank-and-file lawmakers, what did the president, Pelosi and Reid do? They went back to their old claims that a health overhaul would save money.



The president said so in comments last week at a New Hampshire town hall. Pelosi and Reid made the assertion in a USA Today column.



The trio need to be pressed on what they know that the CBO doesn't. They also need to explain why just a month ago they implicitly acknowledged there were no cost savings by seeking tax hikes to finance the overhaul.



The second claim is that a health overhaul would not affect individuals who are satisfied with their existing insurance plans.



Really? The day the overhaul took effect, businesses that now provide health insurance at an average cost of 12 percent to 14 percent of payroll would have the option of dropping their coverage and paying a fee equal to 8 percent of their payroll to the federal government, which would provide the benefit.
Obama, Pelosi and Reid have to know that this would give businesses a huge incentive to drop coverage, thus affecting millions of Americans who are happy with their existing plans.



The private coverage that did survive this federal assault wouldn't be home-free yet, however. After a grace period of a few years, all health insurance would have to meet federal standards. By every indication, these standards would greatly expand what health plans have to cover, leading to a big increase in the cost of premiums.



This issue and the cost question are what the debate should focus on – not the sideshows. Democrats need to back their claims.

[dude1394]

WE NEED HEALTH-CARE!! JUST LIKE CANA...... Oops...nevermind.

APPARENTLY, A CANADIAN-STYLE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM DOESN’T SOLVE THE HEALTH CRISIS. At least, not in Canada.

The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country’s health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country – who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting – recognize that changes must be made.
“We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize,” Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
“We know that there must be change,” she said. “We’re all running flat out, we’re all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands.”

Hey, here’s a thought: Try this newfangled free-market thing. It’s an idea so crazy it just might work!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I kept hearing the left (and Barry) about how we spend a bunch o' dollars on health care and it doesn't make us any healthier because of longevity numbers. I wondered if someone had looked at that. Turns out they have and as expected our o'so'transparent der leader ignores it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...orm_97901.html

hmm, what about infant mortality? not too pretty a stat.

the issue is both allocation of costs (which are going thru the roof), access to care by the uninsured, and people with pre-existing maladies that for the most part bankrupt the patient with their inability to get coverage.

a simple question the opponents fail to address: do you believe that our system is adequate/equitable to all, and is it correctly structered for the next century?

healthcare has changed tremendously over the last couple of decades,and will continue to change in the near future. our delivery system should change to meet these new realities.