News-Record.com

A thought just occurred to me:

We have [mostly] private healthcare, but are apparently 37th in world quality.

We have [mostly] public education, but are apparently 3osomethingth in world quality.

Perhaps all this private / public crap is just .. crap. Perhaps there is a root common that may be elesewhere.

I recent read one of the things that made America great until about 1968 was the sense that we were world winners ... an attitude proven by WWII and a robust economy. From that came concensus that we could do anything .. including going to the moon, solving poverty and holding communism in check. When we failed to readily integrate blacks with whites (the race riots of the 60's) and it became clear 'nam wasn't a slam dunk (as seen on TV everywhere), and when American Soldiers & Guardsmen started shooting people in the streets (Watts, Detroit, Kent State) ... the Consensus was lost. Politicians exploited it with Law and Order vs. Hippy rhetoric (now LIEbural vs. "CONservative rhetoric) - still widely beleavied and parotted ... and America suffers.

"Isn't it time we direct our presidential candidates and representatives to get behind single-payer universal health care?"

Anne, why beat around the bush...why not go whole hog and import Hugo Chavez to run the country? Or even Fidel, Katie has reported, with glee I might add, that he is feeling better and ready to resume work.

Government run health care would reduce poverty? No, it would simply do what all government 'programs' do...steal money from those who earn it, confiscate a sizable chunk of it to buy votes with, then spend the rest to create Walter Reed look-a-likes across the country.

"The United States starts another year without single-payer, government-funded health care."

Thank goodness for that.

Try this Anne. Google "Canada wait time reduction". Notice no mention of health care mind you, I could be inquiring about long wait times for buses in Toronto.

The very first hit (not including the sponsored results) is an official Canadian govt. website describing a 6 year, $4.5 BILLION fund to reduce health care wait times in the provinces. Hell it even has a name, the "Wait Times Reduction Fund".

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index_e.html

*****************************************************

As for the 18,000 deaths, this was a 2002 report by the Institute of Medicine. Here is an interesting link:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200710/NAT20071011a.html

Not True That Thousands Died for Lack of Health Insurance, Critics Say
By Pete Winn
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 11, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Last month, when she announced her $110-billion health-care reform plan, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), said, "Each year, 18,000 people die in America because they don't have health care. Let me repeat that. Here in America people are dying because they couldn't get the care they needed when they were sick."

The Democratic presidential contender further decried the fact that 47 million Americans are without health insurance, painting a dire picture of a crisis in health care coverage as the basis for her proposal to require mandatory health insurance for every American.

But while some experts looking at Clinton's statistics and the issue of a health care crisis said she is correct, other experts said the data and claims are not accurate.

Catherine Hoffman, associate director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured -- a major proponent of government-sponsored health care -- said the information is correct. She said Clinton was relying on a single 2004 study conducted by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) at the National Academy of Sciences.

"(The researchers) looked at the year 2000 -- at census data, basically -- for 18- to 64-year-olds and different age brackets, and looked at mortality rates, and looked at the additive effect that some of the deaths that occurred during that period of time were probably due to lack of insurance because these people didn't have insurance," Hoffman said.

But Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, said the study's findings -- and the uses being made of it -- are open to question.

Tanner said it is "virtually impossible" from the data cited in the IOM study to say outright that 18,000 people a year die because they don't have health insurance.

"This was not set up like a typical scientific study, where you have two groups that are identical and you are able to track them and determine what happened to one group that has insurance versus one group that doesn't have insurance," he said.

"This is going back retroactively, looking at people who died, and suggesting that people without health insurance probably died more frequently than people with health insurance," Tanner added.

In fact, you really can't be certain it was lack of insurance that caused the increased chance of death. Anything from poor diet to failure to follow doctor's advice might have played a role, said Tanner.

********************************************
Sit tight Anne, you may have your wish. All D candidates are pushing for "universal" health care. Our home boy John Edwards wants to make it mandatory, in fact the Feds will come after you if you don't pay your insurance, just like they do with taxes.

Anne, you will be REQUIRED to have regular mammograms. The govt. will see to it. Not that regular mammograms are a bad thing, but it's eerie to me that govt. will require individuals to undergo medical procedures.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295555,00.html

Sorry to you Fox News haters for this link, but I Googled "Edwards mandatory insurance" and surprise no CNN, MSNBC etc. links on the first two pages. Surprise surprise.

Ironic this letter ran the day of the Iowa Caucus.

Off to work.

Dan- "All D candidates are pushing for "universal" health care. Our home boy John Edwards wants to make it mandatory, in fact the Feds will come after you if you don't pay your insurance, just like they do with taxes."

What will be funny is when we find out that this push by the candidates is based on insurance lobbyist money. And by then it will be too late.

Don't believe for a moment that they care one single bit about you.

Roger

I would like for a Universal Health Insurance supporter to tell me how my health care will be better brought to us by the same people that give us our public education system. Arguably, our public education system hasn't shown improvement in the education of children of this nation in 35 years, so how will the government improve our health care?

Even the most ardent Universal Heath Care proponents admit that if everyone is covered, the demand for health care will increase, which will lead to rationing of health care. What that means is that people will still not be receiving health care, but a government bureaucrat will be the one who decides what care you get. Someone tell me that is what you want.

The writer said: The United States starts another year without single-payer, government-funded health care.

I say let us count our blessings.

She closes with: Isn't it time we direct our presidential candidates and representatives to get behind single-payer universal health care?

I say nope!

"American generosity doesn't mean much without a policy that extends to all Americans the health coverage that has worked so well for those older than 65. Oddly enough, a generous plan like single-payer would save us money."

The myths surrounding "universal health care", by any name you choose to call it, are simply astounding, and defy common sense regarding dollars.

"American generosity" doesn't mean a thing when faced with the pending rude awakening of the nearly here Medicare funding disaster, and the constant current reality of unfunded mandates faced by the states.

In addition, we have not even begun to discuss the personal (non-financial) disasters that await Americans under the mediocrity the so-called do-gooders want to impose on us.

government funded??? hahaha!! the government makes no money, it takes money.therefore any universal health care system is just glorified welfare. take from one and give it another.
and jd?? 1968? actually, i think it was 1962. the year the democrats were "overthrown".

I'd support 100% private healthcare.

J.D. that is the most sensible things I have seen from you. However, I am not sure that you believe it.

"I'd support 100% private healthcare."

NP,

You already do. It's the most expensive in the world & 37th best.

Congratulations!

Bubzilla said: "I am not sure that [J.D.] believes[s] it."

Oh yea, I believe it.

==

lilbean:

You have to clue me in on your claim 1962 was "the year the democrats were 'overthrown' ".

From Wiki:

"The U.S. Senate election, 1962 was an election for the United States Senate which occurred in the middle of John F. Kennedy's term. His Democratic Party made a net gain of four seats from the Republicans, maintaining control of the Senate, with Democrats having about 2/3 of the Senate seats."

==

I say 1965 was the year Consensus started to seriously deteriorate, with the sale of Fender Electric Instruments to CBS (an inside joke), the real start of Vietnam War escalation, the assassination of Malcolm, the Watts Riots, and 1968 was pretty much the final-coffin-nail year with the assassination of MLK and Bobby Kennedy, and one year after the Summer of Love (another inside joke).

The 60's were very turbulent time .. starting with "How Much is that Doggie in the Window" and ending with "Ohio".

One more thought, lilbean, which I doubt you'll read let alone respond to:

From your post it would be easy to infer you believe folks have always voted Republican or Democrat without regard to what's been happening or they think is about to happen .. or more accurately what they perceive in those ways.

Rufus:

U.S. government programs accounted for over 45% of health care expenditures.

np,

But how about yours? If you're on MediCare or VA you have a point but if you're on private health care then you're 100%.

So under 100% private who covers the uninsured?

"U.S. government programs accounted for over 45% of health care expenditures."

NP - I wrote a LTE that was rejected because ... "this isn't generally the type of letter we'd print; we tend to print letters that comment on news that the paper has already reported, rather than letters that 'break' news, so to speak".

Aint' that interesting.

Here is it:

==

If you blinked December 26th, you probably missed it: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) quietly approved the �coordination� of corporate health benefits with Medicare.

Under the guise of treating younger retirees fairly compared to retired employees over 65, the EEOC waived age discrimination regulations, allowing corporations to retract privately funded health care promises and instead, dump older retirees onto the publicly funded Medicare system. Folks who made career decisions based on assurances of an excellent retirement health plan may soon find themselves with reduced benefits.

In addition to a patent unfairness and until last week, illegality, there is great irony. The EEOC is headed by a council of five Presidential appointees, all confirmed unanimously by the Senate. Republican fiscal conservancy was to protect us from Hillary Care. Instead, they ushered in Med Part �D�, loading another several hundred billion dollars onto an already under-funded Federal Endowment. More recently Congress stood strong to protect our children from SCHIP, which would have cracked open the door to g-man operated Universal Health Care. Last Wednesday, big business received another nice Christmas present for which the rest of us must pay.

Too bad our only election choices are hypocritical Republicans or clueless Democrats.

==

So why do I post this: You state you are for 100% private coverage, and that 45% is federal. But our elected leaders ... including the R Party .. just let some with 100% private coverage get converted to federal coverage.

Let me repeat:

Too bad our only election choices are hypocritical Republicans or clueless Democrats.

==