But it's working so well in France...

Congress is attempting a major expansion of the Government's role in health insurance and the hapless Daily Star is stepping right in line. 

Wrangling over political philosophy could leave 6.6 million low-income children who depend on the State Children's Health Insurance Program without health coverage if lawmakers cannot agree and reauthorize the bill before it expires Sept. 30.

Here's a great piece of media spin.

The health and well-being of America's children should not be used as a football in an ideological drive to privatize medical insurance.

The only "ideological drive" is to give government more control over health insurance.  Only in the Star's Alice-in-Wonderland view could an attempt to slow the pace of this program's expansion be characterized as "an ideological drive to privatize medical insurance."  This is the same perspective that causes editorial boards to whine about "cuts" in Government Programs.

This sentence makes it obvious that we are really talking about a massive expansion.

A bipartisan bill approved 17-4 earlier this month by the Senate Finance Committee— with Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl voting against it — would continue the baseline payments of $25 billion over five years and add $35 billion to maintain health care for the 6.6 million kids now on SCHIP and expand coverage to another 3.2 million low-income kids who don't have medical coverage for another five years.

And what's the story behind that jab at Kyl?  The Wall Street Journal clears that up. 

GOP Senators Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl are backing an alternative to account for population growth and reach the remaining 689,000 uninsured children that Schip was intended to help. Republicans would be wise to support this version,

Here's the entire WSJ editorial.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program sounds like the epitome of good government: Who could be against health care for children? The answer is anyone who worries about one more middle-class taxpayer entitlement and a further slide to a government takeover of health care. Yet Schip is sailing toward a major expansion with almost no media scrutiny, and with Republicans in Congress running for cover.

Schip was enacted in 1997 to help insure children from working-poor families who make too much to qualify for Medicaid. In the intervening years, the program reduced the rate of uninsured kids by about 25% but has also grown to cover the middle class and even many adults -- and it gets bigger every year. Schip expires in September without reauthorization, and Congressional Democrats want to enlarge its $35 billion budget by at least $60 billion over five years.

State Governors from both parties are also leading the charge -- and for their own self-interested reasons. Schip money is delivered as a block grant, which the states match while designing their own insurance programs. All cost overruns, however, are billed to the federal government, which is on the hook for about 70% of Schip's "matching rate." This offers incentives for state politicians to make generous promises and shift the costs to the feds, or to toy around with costly universal health-care experiments. And since the states only get 57 cents on the dollar for Medicaid, they are working hard to transfer those recipients to Schip.

This self-interest explains a recent letter from the National Governors Association demanding "urgent action" on Schip, which got lots of favorable play in the press. Yet these are the same Governors who have been moaning for years about rising entitlement burdens, which is what Schip will be soon enough. Particularly egregious was the signature on the letter of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, a Republican who regards himself a conservative health-care maven and should know better.

This "bipartisan" cover is serving Democrats in Congress, who want to liberalize Schip eligibility as part of their march to national health care. The Senate Finance Committee has voted 17-4 to increase Schip spending to at least $112 billion over 10 years. Not only does it use a budget trick to hide a payment hole of at least $30 billion, it proposes to offset the increase by bumping up the cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 pack.

House Democrats are putting the finishing touches on their own plan, making the cigarette tax somewhat lower to win over tobacco-state Members. Instead, the House is proposing to steal nearly $50 billion from Medicare Advantage, the innovative attempt to bring private competition to senior health care.

Michigan's John Dingell explains that "these are not cuts" but "reductions in completely unjustified overpayments" -- which will come as news to insurers that offered coverage plans based on certain funding expectations. The "overpayments" he's referring to were passed expressly as an incentive for companies to offer Medicare Advantage in rural areas with traditionally fewer insurance options -- and are intended to be phased out over time. Democrats apparently want to starve any private option for Medicare.

In any case, the actual costs of Schip will overwhelm these financing gimmicks. Like all government insurance, Schip is "covering" more children by displacing private insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, for every 100 children who are enrolled in the proposed Schip expansion, there will be a corresponding reduction in private insurance for between 25 and 50 children. Although there is a net increase in coverage, it comes by eroding the private system.

This crowd-out effect is magnified moving up the income scale. In 2005, 77% of children between 200% and 300% of the poverty level already had private insurance, which is where the Senate compromise wants to move Schip participation. New York State is moving to 400% of poverty, or some $82,000 in annual income. All of this betrays the fact that the real political objective of Schip is more government control -- HillaryCare on the installment plan.

We'd have thought Capitol Hill Republicans would understand all this, especially with the White House vowing to veto any big Schip expansion. But we hear the GOP lacks the Senate votes for a filibuster and perhaps even to sustain a veto. GOP Senators Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl are backing an alternative to account for population growth and reach the remaining 689,000 uninsured children that Schip was intended to help. Republicans would be wise to support this version, or they'll take one more step to returning to their historic minority party status as tax collectors for the welfare state.

Comments

[netrootsdemocrat]

Lemme, guess, Greg: you have health insurance and so does your family, right?

Another guess: you've never been to France?

Third guess: you've never read any positive press reports/articles from the corporate media on the health care systems of Sweden, France, UK, Canada, Japan, etc.? Hmmm, why is that? Yet these plans are about 90% popular with the people in those countries.

Oh, yeah, those are commie pinko leftists in all those countries.

[Mark]

No netroots, you got it wrong. The uninsured in the US have a higher approval (according to major Pew study) of their own personal health care than the citizens of Canada, who have gov't provided health care. I didn't misstate that - THE UNINISURED in this country. I guess the citizens of your socialist dream countries don't enjoy waiting 6 months for treatment. For more information about this issue (and to give you a source) read economist John Lott's new book (sorry - cant remember the name of his book).

[Cynthia Richardson]

All of this is dancing around the eventual decision this country is going to have to make but the political community is too scared to act on. We need to retool our healthcare system to some sort of public-private system that actually works and recognizes market forces and anticipates them.

Unlike the current system which basically acts oblivious to markets and instead of changing with the market, it just keeps making healthcare more expensive for taxpayers.

Maybe one day they'll make a real compromise on some sort of fix, but i guess we were hoping that same hope with immigration.

Hopefully the left won't act as childish on healthcare as the conservatives did on immigration compromise. But that again is wishful thinking....

[The Klute]

John Lott - isn't that the same guy who invented a fake online persona to defend himself on the internet? And who argues we're not paying enough for drugs? And argued that price gouging by the oil companies after Hurricane Katrina was downright awesome?

I'd like to see that unvarnished Pew study, can't seem to find any reference to it on the net.

Maybe Subcommander Kos had it purged.

[Nathan]

Mark,

The book is Freedomnomics. I haven't read it yet, but its on my to-do list as I did read Freakanomics.

Netrootsdem,

Never been to France but not sure what that has to do with anything regarding their health care system, but I think for most people who oppose government supplied health care is that they would like the freedom to make their own health care choices, not have them decided by a bureaucrat in Washington.

[Mark]

Thanks Nathan!

Klute - fake online persona to defend himself? Not sure. Could be. Isn't that what Klute is, lol.

I saw him speak last week. Very impressive. He argued that Canadians aren't paying enough for drugs and that Americans pay for all of the billions for research/development but Canadian law does not allow American companies to include those costs when determining the price of Canadian drugs. You care to defend that?

Price gauging - I think I read Stossle on that. If I remember correctly, the law of supply and demand is faster at remedying shortages, as were exerienced in Katrina, than occured under Gov't regulation. Sounds logical. If you have a link please provide.

[netrootsdemocrat]

Nathan,

you don't have "choices" now, buddy. haha. You think anyone whose net worth is south of the Hiltons have any choice in this country vis-a-vis health care?

As for Mark's comments, there's no six-month wait. That's pro-pa.ga.nda. from the rightwing. And I will not respond to your post any further because I refuse to waste my time trying to refute Goebbels, er, Karl Rove's talking-points. Btw, Mark, do you get your to-do-today list from the RNC via email or fax?

[The Klute]

"Klute - fake online persona to defend himself? Not sure. Could be. Isn't that what Klute is, lol."

Well, technically, more people know me as Klute than my Christian name - but in his case, he invented a whole 'nother person pretending to be someone else.

It would be analagous to me saying:

[real name redacted]: I think bad things are bad.

The Klute: I think [real name redacted] is correct!

"You care to defend that?"

Not having read his argument against Canada, not really qualified to speak against it. I only know my two major experiences with America's private healthcare system - one which was extremely positive, one extremely negative (which lead to my family's bankruptcy back in the 80s). The latter of which will never allow me to advocate for anything other than a single-payer system. A 6-month wait for a surgery would have been a blessing.

"Price gauging - I think I read Stossle on that. If I remember correctly, the law of supply and demand is faster at remedying shortages, as were exerienced in Katrina, than occured under Gov't regulation. Sounds logical. If you have a link please provide."

I could be thinking Stossel. But having lived through Hurricanes Andrew in Miami and Irene and West Palm Beach (although being prepared where neither actually affected me), I feel they should be placed in the stocks.

[ron]

Back in 2000 I had some health issues - he wanted to rule out cancer since my father had died of cancer 6 months earlier and my mother died that year of cancer. Protocol calls for a series of tests to rule out what we are dealing with. First test took six weeks to set up, next test took six weeks, next test took 6 weeks, next test took 12 weeks. From initial contact to last test -which is the test we should have probably done first - was almost one year. The reason for the back ups - available spots for the tests - get in line...

Could have died by the time I got to the last test - which thankfully was negative.

My family all lives in Canada. I don't hear them complaining of the system.

ron

[Timothy]

I have an anecdote in a Canadian relative on the so-called six month waiting list for cataract surgery: he's retired. If he had a part time job, they would move him up on the list. Full time, move him up farther. "To each according to his ability..."

[ann]

When the government really got into the game of health care, or more appropriately health care reimbursement, is when things spiraled to where we are now. Prior to the mid-1980’s, the idea of being a cash pay client of a hospital was not so unheard of. Many people had limited insurance or none at all. If you were having a baby, $800 cash payment covered the cost of the hospital for the delivery and newborn care. You could pre-pay that and be set. Same with the OB, a flat fee for the service.

Then the concept of DRG’s came into play. Medicare ranked every ailment and treatment option. If the treatment didn’t match up to the ailment code, no payment would be rendered. The discount for reimbursement was very steep, 20-30 cents on the dollar. That is a 70-80% discounted bill.

Now every insurance company has a negotiated discount. If you have hospitalization insurance and your bill is $10,000; your insurance company might pay $2,000 and the rest is a write off. But if you are a cash pay, your bill is $10,000…. you pay $10,000.

The true cost of the service should be the charge. Not an over inflated charge so that the discounted payment will cover the actual cost.

[The Klute]

I've wondered how that works. I had heart surgery back in May, and I check my insurance website once in a while and laugh - it's up to $156,000.00 (of which they paid $105,000.00).

But, because of said heart surgery, I'm in indentured servitude for the rest of my life - no private insurer will ever touch me. I'll have to work until I'm dead or on the dole, unless I'm willing to wipe out my savings.

And that is why I'm planning to expatriate in my 50s. It's a sad state of affairs when my options are insolvency, inability to retire, or leave the country of my birth.

[netrootsdemocrat]

Klute, I'm with ya, buddy. I'm planning on moving to France. It's one of the toughest countries to move to, but, my grandfather on my mother's side is french from marseille, so perhaps that's a loophole, I dunno.

I have a law degree and practice in the US, and I am hoping I can do some transnational lit, anti-trust, or some banking stuff in France, but, obviously it's all that silly civil law stuff. If not, then whatever opens up. I love that country (as well as this one), but I have to look out for me and my health for when I get old. I also, as a gay man, don't need some SCOTUS with Alito and Roberts scuttling everything I have ever worked for.

For those of you who would - predictably - say "leave now, and don't let the door hit ya on the way out", I'd say: if YOU write the check for my relocation fees, I'm on the next Lufthansa! I am going as fast as *i* can.

[The Klute]

Well, the two countries I'm looking at are Sweden and Germany (I've already begun the process for Sweden - I'll be teaching a class on slam poetry there sometime next year).

A friend works for a zaibatsu in Germany, and he loves the healthcare he gets (he's American, expatriated back in 2000) - admittedly, his tax rate is extremely high, but that's offset by savings by using public transport, cheaper utilities, etc.

France has an awesome health care system. My grandfather settled there after WWII... Until he passed away, he had daily nursing care, a daily assistant to make his meals, he had a good quality of life at his own home. The French government even took care of his burial details. And even after all that AND the estate taxes, my sister and I wound up with a decent inheritance (handled by a public soliciter even).

[Julie]

Ann: Your point about cash customers having to pay full price at hospitals may be true sometimes, but it was not true for our family. I was seen at Arizona Heart Hospital and incurred a significant number of large bills. They saw me in the emergency room where I told them I had no insurance. I recieved excellent care and several tests. Each bill I recieved turned out to be significantly discounted, some bills came and I was given the option of paying within 30 days and recieving a 50% discount. I wrote that check immediately! I made arrangements for payments that fit my budget and it took me about a year to pay off. Not too bad. My daughter was seen at Desert Banner and we were given a huge bill. Again, I made arrangements based on what we could afford and when I had a problem, I called and let them know. These bills were not discounted significantly, but each billing office, from labs to specialists to doctors each worked with me until they were paid. We are in the process of making the decision about whether to sign up for healthcare. I'm not sure what we'll do. Cash payments have worked well for us.

[Ann]

Julie,

It sounds as if you are in good shape and handle your personal finances well. I can certainly respect your story and hope others would have the same good fortune. However if everyone was paying the true cost, a relative comparison would be much eaier to make.

[Mark]

How frakin funny! Should the leftists move to France or Sweden? You know, I have read you both enough to know that neither are stupid. You are both highly intelligent but you remind me of Paul's line in Romans: Thinking themselves wise they become fools.

Do you libs ever actually think about the mechanics of your pet ideas? So let's get this straight: you both want our taxes to pay for all of our medical care and medications, right? So who will set the prices for that medication and medical treatment? What forces will keep costs down? Who will determine the profit margin? How much will doctors be paid? Nurses? Hospital administrators? Who will decide those salaries? Why would Americans go into those professions? What is their profit incentive?

It is now so bad in England that so few native Brits are going into to medicine that they have to import many of their doctors, largely from the Middle East and Asia. Basically England is so desperate for doctors that they allowed islamo-fascist terrorists take up those occupations.

You know medicine and medical care are products/services provided by a profession. Similar to books by writers or legal advice by lawyers. I think everyone should have the right to read and since new books are way too expensive why not have a single payer system where the government determines the price of each book? I mean, come on, how can poor people afford $30 for a book that may change their lives? Who cares that the author spent 3 years doing research and 1 year writing the book - let’s just decide now that the book should only be 3 times the cost for publishing it - right?

And Net - you are a lawyer - well everyone should have a right to legal advice, right? But good lawyers charge way too much per hour for poor people, do they not? So let’s have the government tell them what they can charge, right? I mean come on, $25 an hour is enough for you, isn’t it Net? (I fear this may be a bad example as $25 may be more than what you are currently getting).

The law of supply and demand is called a law for a reason. If we want to fix our health care system we should eliminate practically all government regulations on that industry.

[Ann]

Hot off the presses...Here is Rudy's plan for health care:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/31/ap3971443.html

[The Klute]

I swear I'll never understand this Republican obsessession with tax credits. Is it too hard to for people to realize that the working poor don't benefit from tax credits BECAUSE THEY DON'T PAY TAXES. Other than payroll taxes, of course, which is something the rich don't actually pay (after what, 100,000 worth of income).

Health care? Give them a tax credit!
Education? Here's a tax credit!
Extinction-level asteroid hurtling toward Earth? Have a tax credit!

I do like Giuliani's "No Mistress Left Behind" plan though.

[Julie]

Ann,
Your point about true costs is most important. Sixteen years ago my son was taken in an ambulance to the hospital. We had insurance at the time and did not have to pay the bill directly. While checking the billing statement, I noticed a $1.00 charge for an item. When I called the billing company and gave them the billing item number to inquire what it was, the woman sheepishly told me that it was the code for a Kleenex. During the ride, I was crying and the EMT handed me a tissue. Had I known I would have used my sleave!

[Tom]

Mark,

Eliminate all government regulation, I love it!! ENRON loved it, too!!

Who will work for lower costs after that? Will insurance companies work to lower costs, cover more people, provide better service?

Why would they?

The law of supply and demand for a product assumes that there will be some people that just won't be able to afford it, that the price point will be unattainable for people at the lower spectrum.

Take Giuliani's plan for example. He wants to do away with all insurance that people get through their employer and replace it with a $15,000 tax credit. That's all well and good if you've got an extra $15,000 to spend and be reimbursed for, but what if you don't. You chose to work for an employer that offered great health care, because you had a pre-existing condition that won't be covered in the private market. What happens to you?

You don't get covered, that's what. Will it be cheaper for everybody else, like Giuliani promised? Yep, because those of us that have preexisting conditions or are poor and more predisposed to health problems won't be able to get coverage and insurance companies can just cover the healthy people.

The insurance companies just won't supply coverage for the recovering cancer patient or the kid with hemophilia, because why should they? They can make enough money off the demand of the healthy people.

But everybody that doesn't fit into the healthy box just doesn't get health insurance. That's why medicaid and medicare were created in the first place, because nobody wanted to cover the poor or the elderly.

What you and Giuliani want are to go back to the old days, where if you're rich and healthy, you get covered and, if you're not, cross your fingers you don't go bankrupt.

[mahtso]

If you think the Canadian system is good, you may want to read a 2005 Canadian Supreme Court Opinion that found that the system is so poor that people are dieing from lack of treatment while on waiting lists.

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2005/2005scc35/2005scc35.html

From the Court's opinion:

The Superior Court judge stated [translation] “that there [are] serious problems in certain sectors of the health care system” (p. 823). The evidence supports that assertion....

Not only is it common knowledge that health care in Quebec is subject to waiting times, but a number of witnesses acknowledged that the demand for health care is potentially unlimited and that waiting lists are a more or less implicit form of rationing .... Waiting lists are therefore real and intentional. The witnesses also commented on the consequences of waiting times.

The right to life is therefore affected by the delays that are the necessary result of waiting lists.

Dr. Eric Lenczner, an orthopaedic surgeon, testified that the usual waiting time of one year for patients who require orthopaedic surgery increases the risk that their injuries will become irreparable. Clearly, not everyone on a waiting list is in danger of dying before being treated.

There was no dispute that there is a waiting list for cardiovascular surgery for life-threatening problems. Dr. Daniel Doyle confirmed, without challenge, that patients die while on waiting lists: Inevitably, where patients have life-threatening conditions, some will die because of undue delay in awaiting surgery.

Dr. Lenczner also testified that 95 percent of patients in Canada wait well over a year, and many two years, for knee replacements. While a knee replacement may seem trivial compared to the risk of death for wait-listed coronary surgery patients, which increases by 0.5 percent per month (A.R., at p. 450), the harm suffered by patients awaiting replacement knees and hips is significant. Even though death may not be an issue for them, these patients “are in pain”, “would not go a day without discomfort” and are “limited in their ability to get around”, some being confined to wheelchairs or house bound (A.R., at pp. 327-28).

[The Klute]

The real question to be asked is whether ANYONE in the Europe or Canada would say "Hey, you know what health care system I'd like? The United States' system!".

Funny how that question is never asked.

[Mark]

Klute - the answer to your question is evident in all the American hospitals that are on the border with Canada and who are very busy servicing Canadians.

Tom - I didn't say all regulations - I said most. You ask who will work for lower costs but you fail to understand that our current system attempts to control costs through human micromanagement instead of relying upon market forces. Such micromanagement at the hands of bureaucrats ultimately causes uncontrollable costs to both the providers and the subscribers. How many times do we have to witness & experience this in history before you socialists will wake up and smell the rotting corpse of Marx?

You wrote: "The law of supply and demand for a product assumes that there will be some people that just won't be able to afford it, that the price point will be unattainable for people at the lower spectrum."

No, again you, like so many socialists, fail to understand; human nature ensures this not the law of supply and demand. There will always be people who cannot afford something and the more you try to remedy that via the gov't, which is almost always some tax hike imposed upon those who can afford it, you arrive at an outcome where nearly NO ONE can ultimately afford it. Utopia is nothing more than a dream - it will never ever be a reality.

You wrote "Will insurance companies work to lower costs, cover more people, provide better service? Why would they?"

Some won’t. But markets abhor a vacuum and companies will arise who will. Those that don’t will be forced to compete. Do you really believe that AT&T wants to only charge $50 for 900 minutes/month? Do you really believe they just love giving text away for free? But why do they? Because of Verizon and all the other competitors.

American capitalism in combination with our Republican system of gov't is the ideal because it best understands the complexities of human nature (something liberals are notoriously daft at) and allows an outcome where the greatest number of people have the liberty to pursuit their own personal happiness. Why are Americans the richest people on the planet? Why have we been the richest people (per capita) for over 200 years?

You, from what I have read, are misinformed about Giuliani’s plan. No where did I read that he wants his tax credit plan to replace employer provided health insurance but wants it as an accompaniment. If I am wrong please provide a source.

It's also amazing how you apply today's standards, costs, benefits, etc to my scenario. How utterly ridiculous. Those "that have preexisting conditions or are poor and more predisposed to health problems won't be able to get coverage", you wrote. But that is only true under the current heavily gov't regulated system. Eliminate those regulations and costs will plummet and competition will rise exponentially. Just try using some common sense. My phone bill is cheaper today than what my parents paid 30 years ago. Why is that?

And next time please try to address at least one of my questions. If you want to come here and promote socialism then you should at least have the decency and intellectual honesty to be able to defend your socialist proposals.

P.S. You must be on Mars if you think Enron wasn't heavily regulated. Do you know why we experience so few 'Enrons' in this country? Not because corrupt CEOs fear the Feds. No because they fear their board of directors and stock holders. Even false accusations against a major corporation can greatly hurt a company's stocks and profits.

[The Klute]

"the answer to your question is evident in all the American hospitals that are on the border with Canada and who are very busy servicing Canadians."

So all the Americans heading down to Mexico's pharmacies is a ringing endorsement of Mexico's pharmacy system?

Anecdotal evidence amounts for exactly jacksquat.

With all the anti-SiCKO hysteria and desperate attempts by the medical industry to stave off the upcoming round of regulation coming post-2008, you'd think if that question would be answered "yes", it blasted from every mountain top in the land if any significant amount of Canadians, Brits, French, Germans, etc. wanted to swap their healthcare plans for our super totally awesome for-profit system?

[FLibs]

So court decisions are now anectodal evidence?

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2005/2005scc35/2005scc35.html

Klute must be Norwegian for "idiot." I hope to God you don't have children. If you did, you should drown them in the bathtub now and save them the agony.

[The Klute]

What Chaoulli v. Quebec did was not show a broad spectrum abandonment of support for public healthcare - nor did I ever say support for private medical care
was unheard of.

Now, I'm typing this very... slowly... so your obvious deficiencies at language comprehension (possibly a side-effect of poor parentage - were your parents also cousins?) aren't going to prevent you from understanding this:

"if any significant amount of Canadians"

This statement assumes SOME Canadians, but not all, would be in favor of going to pay-to-play healthcare.

And, of course, you haven't been able to provide evidence of that.

"Klute must be Norwegian for "idiot." I hope to God you don't have children. If you did, you should drown them in the bathtub now and save them the agony."

10 to 1 this guy identifies as pro-life.

[netrootsdemocrat]

The far right best compromise now on UHC (like they did with Romey in Massachusetts), because we are going to get power, and when we do, you'll regret y'all didn't compromise.

You conservatives wouldn't want to see guys like me in power...and we're getting there, believe me, because if I had my druthers, I'd nationalize the WHOLE thing. Single-payer paid for my across the board tax (all kinds of taxes) increases of whatever amount would be needed to pay for it.

[Mark]

Trust me; we know whom we are fighting. Nevertheless, I do appreciate that rare admission of honesty.

How sad that none of my points were addressed... And Klute - yes we go to Mexico because their pharmaceuticals are not as heavily regulated. Wow - you made my argument.

[The Klute]

Hey, if you want to hold up the Mexican government's system of anything is something to be emulated, be my guest.

I wouldn't trust Mexican pharmecuticals for with my life, because of the same argument -they're not heavily regulated. You can't let the marketplace decide when you're in the ground (well, I suppose you could, but then you don't get to enjoy the unfettered capitalist excess).

[Mark]

Don't you mean the Mexican government's lack of a system?

No one said you had to buy their drugs but many people do and it is a choice they have made for themselves. What - do you want to prevent that personal choice as well?

[The Klute]

"Don't you mean the Mexican government's lack of a system?"

Possibly.

"No one said you had to buy their drugs but many people do and it is a choice they have made for themselves. What - do you want to prevent that personal choice as well?"

No, but I'm not going to hold it up as something to emulate - people self-medicating without controls on what they're taking, that's a universal bad.

My favorite example of this was going to a pharmacy in Puerto Penasco and seeing ads for Cipro on the walls (in response to the domestic anthrax attack). One wonders how many people made themselves sick taking Cipro without a doctor's approval - or started drug-resitant bacteria strains when they took an anti-biotic they didn't need.

[tom]

I didn't address any of your points, Mark? Your only point is (and Greg's too, for that matter) that anyone that believes that ensuring decent, affordable health care for Americans regardless of their income or their age or preexisting conditions or where they live is "beware socialism"?

Conservatives have gotten very good at dismissing the pressing needs of this country by reducing debates into buzzwords (see "amnesty"). The problem is that the country is sick of all of you crying wolf.

Concerned that the number of kids without health insurance is growing exponentially? You're a socialist. Concerned that health care costs are growing at three times the rate of inflation? You're a socialist. Concerned that emergency room wait times are longer in Arizona compared to every other state in the country? You're a socialist. Believe that insurance company bureaucrats might not have your best interest at heart? You're a socialist.

Let's look at what deregulation (so-called Mandate Light") has gotten states that have instituted it:

New Jersey? Did not reduce the number of uninsured, did not health care costs.

Florida? Did not reduce the number of uninsured, did not health care costs.

Montana? Did not reduce the number of uninsured, did not health care costs.

In fact, no state that has instituted deregulation has seen the promised benefits that Giuliani is once again touting, fewer uninsured and lower costs. Not one state has seen lower costs or fewer uninsured.

So let's talk about the theory of the power of the market to solve every problem in our lives vs. the reality of what deregulation has actually done.

In fact, since Arizona is already one of the least regulated states in the country when it comes to health care, how are we, as a state doing?

Well, we have the longest emergency room wait times in the country. It is almost impossible to find a health care professional in rural areas in our state after 5 pm. We have the fourth highest rate of the uninsured in the country. Our health care costs are growing faster then any other state in the rocky mountain west. Employers are getting hammered by the increase in their health care costs, causing Arizona employers to dramatically reduce the number of employees that they cover with health insurance.

And your solution is keep doing the same, only more? And all because doing something else, anything else would make me Mao or Stalin?

The American people aren't that stupid. They want real solutions, not more 1950s rhetoric.

[Mark]

No, Tom, you did not address a single point or question that I raised. You simply glossed over them and tried the old bait and switch. Then you have the audacity of brushing off the socialist accusation, as if one’s political ideology isn’t relevant as you promote socialist ideas. Then you complain about our current system, which is filled with millions of pages of federal regulations. What a laugh!

[ron]

Mark, what do you think of Tom's observation of the state of healthcare in AZ?

Tom's observatioon: "In fact, since Arizona is already one of the least regulated states in the country when it comes to health care, how are we, as a state doing?

Well, we have the longest emergency room wait times in the country. It is almost impossible to find a health care professional in rural areas in our state after 5 pm. We have the fourth highest rate of the uninsured in the country. Our health care costs are growing faster then any other state in the rocky mountain west. Employers are getting hammered by the increase in their health care costs, causing Arizona employers to dramatically reduce the number of employees that they cover with health insurance."

[Ann]

Ron,

How do our burgeoning illegal immigrant numbers play into your statistics?

[ron]

Ann, the growing costs of health care was happening before all the illegals showed up. Once in the 80s and once in the early 90s I had to change health insurance companies because they left the state because 'the cost of health care in AZ is too high'. This was long before the big influx of illegals.

ron

[Mark]

Yeah Ann nailed it as regards to the impact from illegals. But I really see no point in debating the status quo. The current system is clearly broken. However we are now debating remedies. The liberals want to increase your taxes in order to create a new entitlement for socialized medicine. They have seen the failures from all their regulations and now want to hand it over to the federal government to run. What brilliant logic.

I am still waiting for a few, God even one, answer to my many questions regarding that system. But apparently the libs have no desire to defend it. Interesting...

[Tim W.]

Maybe, Mark, it's because you're too busy throwing out the buzzwords like Tom was saying. Your quick to label people without any forethought. Are 60% of Americans socialists because they support a universal health care system?

I hardly want a controlled-economy, but in a industry with absolutely 100% demand, the free market just does not work. Health care is one of these few industries, along with education and infrastructure.

[Mark]

How about this buzz word: fools!

Yes if 60% of Americans support socialized medicine then they are clearly socialists. And when in the hell did socialist become a buzz word? I thought it was a proper idenitification for certain political-ideological-economic beliefs?

The real questions is why are you in denial? Why must you attempt deception? Are you not embracing a socialist agenda? If you think 60% are on your side then why do you fear being exposed for what you are?

[The Klute]

Mark,

It'd work better if you added "I'll destroy you all!" after "Fools!". Also, stroke a white cat while saying so if possible.

;)

[Tim W.]

"Yes if 60% of Americans support socialized medicine then they are clearly socialists. And when in the hell did socialist become a buzz word? I thought it was a proper idenitification for certain political-ideological-economic beliefs?"

The same day 'liberal' became a bad word. If you can't differentiate between a person who holds a single quasi-socialist policy idea, and a true socialist, then I suggest you stop acting like you know what the term "proper identification" means.

[Tom]

"Did I say it was the 'socialists' fault, I meant it was the 'illegals' fault..." And I'm the one doing bait and switch.

Next, it'll be too many people having babies, or too many old people, or global warming (oh, wait you don't believe in that, right?)

In the most deregulated health care system in the Western world, that is also the most expensive and ineffective by any measure, you think we should deregulate MORE?

"The problem is that insurance companies have too little power!!! I want somebody with no medical training and every incentive to deny me the care that I need to be in charge of my health care!!!"

Don't you realize how far away from the average Joe you are?

[Mark]

Klute - will a black cat do?

Tim if you can't differentiate between socialism and capitalism then I suggest you stop voting. And to call it quasi-socialist is so charming. Kind of like saying Hitler was a quasi-fascist, lol. And 'liberal' did not become a bad word but instead liberals were not prepared to defend their socialist proposals and were overwhelmingly rejected by the electorate. Thus, you liberals stopped referring to yourself by that label and attempted to deceive the public by using 'progressive' or other meaningless monikers.

So Tom - are you saying that there is no impact from illegals upon Arizona's healthcare system? Unless you are then admit defeat now. You simply cannot dismiss my argument while, at the same time, embracing it.

Tom you state that our system is the most deregulated in the world. Please tell me what those federal regulations are, how they have improved our system and why they should be increased?

I will not hold my breath...