• Clear sky
  • 52°
    Clear sky

WHO ranks USA #37 in health care

this song on youtube says it all!


sad to see who is no. one.

WHO is World Health Organization btw.

  • Comment
Comments (32) Add comment
Willy 09/26/09 - 10:30 am
please getinformedman!


The second paragragh says it all, clearly a political agenda from a study done in 2000.

Willy 09/26/09 - 10:48 am
heron55 09/26/09 - 10:56 am
Makes one wonder

Makes one wonder with the reputation of the US health care in some circles, why some world leaders and notable people will choose a facility and staff in the US for their personal use.

getinvolvedman 09/26/09 - 11:55 am
why do they come here?

It is very simple, we have the best doctors in the world but only the priviledged are able to AFFORD them.

We do have an excellent health care system for those with a job which helps to provide payment assistance, I am one of the fortunate to have such insurance.

So there is your answer dear heron55.

No I have not read all of the other posts links yet, too busy cleaning my house, the insurance will not cover house cleaning services.

yelvington 09/26/09 - 12:02 pm
That's easy

The availability of excellent care for the super-rich and members of Congress doesn't mean squat to someone without health insurance, or whose insurance does not cover a preexisting condition, or whose insurer denies a claim.

WHO tries to measure a concept -- quality of public health -- that is complex and includes not just the quality of the best institutions (like Mayo and Johns Hopkins), but the breadth of availability of quality care.

As for Willy's link to the Library of Economics and Liberty, note that it has an agenda. So does the World Health Organization. One is a medical agenda about health. The other is a political agenda about limiting government. Occasionally they find themselves in opposition, although they are not two sides of a coin.

Heron55 is right that many foreign heads of state come to the United States for treatment.

But it's also true that hundreds of thousands of people from the United States fly overseas every year for more affordable treatment at medical facilities in Thailand, South Korea, Malaysia and India. Or they buy mail-order medications from Canada. People even cross the border into Mexico for treatment they can afford, creepy as that might sound.

You can get a lot of high-end medical procedures at Bumrungrad Hospital in Bangkok for about one-tenth the price in a US hospital. The place is like a five-star hotel, and they even have golf outings while you recuperate. It's an extraordinary facility. That doesn't help an Issan rice farmer with a heart condition. Look at where Thailand ranks in the WHO 2000 public health list:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
51 Dominican Republic
52 Tunisia
53 Jamaica
54 Venezuela
55 Albania
56 Seychelles
57 Paraguay
58 South Korea
59 Senegal
60 Philippines
61 Mexico
62 Slovakia
63 Egypt
64 Kazakhstan
65 Uruguay
66 Hungary
67 Trinidad and Tobago
68 Saint Lucia
69 Belize
70 Turkey
71 Nicaragua
72 Belarus
73 Lithuania
74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
75 Argentina
76 Sri Lanka
77 Estonia
78 Guatemala
79 Ukraine
80 Solomon Islands
81 Algeria
82 Palau
83 Jordan
84 Mauritius
85 Grenada
86 Antigua and Barbuda
87 Libya
88 Bangladesh
89 Macedonia
90 Bosnia-Herzegovina
91 Lebanon
92 Indonesia
93 Iran
94 Bahamas
95 Panama
96 Fiji
97 Benin
98 Nauru
99 Romania
100 Saint Kitts and Nevis
101 Moldova
102 Bulgaria
103 Iraq
104 Armenia
105 Latvia
106 Yugoslavia
107 Cook Islands
108 Syria
109 Azerbaijan
110 Suriname
111 Ecuador
112 India
113 Cape Verde
114 Georgia
115 El Salvador
116 Tonga
117 Uzbekistan
118 Comoros
119 Samoa
120 Yemen
121 Niue
122 Pakistan
123 Micronesia
124 Bhutan
125 Brazil
126 Bolivia
127 Vanuatu
128 Guyana
129 Peru
130 Russia
131 Honduras
132 Burkina Faso
133 Sao Tome and Principe
134 Sudan
135 Ghana
136 Tuvalu
137 Ivory Coast
138 Haiti
139 Gabon
140 Kenya
141 Marshall Islands
142 Kiribati
143 Burundi
144 China
145 Mongolia
146 Gambia
147 Maldives
148 Papua New Guinea
149 Uganda
150 Nepal
151 Kyrgystan
152 Togo
153 Turkmenistan
154 Tajikistan
155 Zimbabwe
156 Tanzania
157 Djibouti
158 Eritrea
159 Madagascar
160 Vietnam
161 Guinea
162 Mauritania
163 Mali
164 Cameroon
165 Laos
166 Congo
167 North Korea
168 Namibia
169 Botswana
170 Niger
171 Equatorial Guinea
172 Rwanda
173 Afghanistan
174 Cambodia
175 South Africa
176 Guinea-Bissau
177 Swaziland
178 Chad
179 Somalia
180 Ethiopia
181 Angola
182 Zambia
183 Lesotho
184 Mozambique
185 Malawi
186 Liberia
187 Nigeria
188 Democratic Republic of the Congo
189 Central African Republic
190 Myanmar

dixie 09/26/09 - 07:24 pm
Cleveland Clinic

I have a friend who works at the Cleveland Clinic ( I won't say what he does) but they get not only political figures from all over the world including China and Russia but Celebs. It is never made public but if our health situation is so awful how can this be?

It's another lie put forth by the ultra left to push forward their agenda. I am happy and worked hard to get the health care I enjoy and don't want to be put on the back burner because I'm a senior. I also pay SIEU which is my union, extra money each month for critical care insurance which includes Alzheimers; cancer; and other diseases. Will I get this care with the Health Care bill proposed? I think not and soon I'll give up on SIEU because I don't believe I'll be elegible for such care with this new proposal.

heron55 09/26/09 - 07:48 pm
Even locally

Even locally we can get the best health care and we don't have to be rich. Of course we need health insurance and we do need to find ways to reduce premium costs so that those who choose to may buy it.

The local Keyserling Center in Beaufort, affiliated with Duke University is bringing us the latest techniques in cancer treatments.

One of my younger brothers developed colon cancer, went through all of the treatments and was cured. But a year later, they found three small spots on his liver. The latest endoscopic procedure with just a small incision was to take a sample to determine the best cure.

Using the same endoscopic procedure, they did some local chemo with good results. Having the local treatments meant that he did not go through the normal chemo side results.

Do we have great medical treatments in this country or what? And right here in Beaufort, not some far off city. No he is not rich, but has insurance with his employer.

Another younger brother had skin cancer and is without a job or insurance. He went to our dermatologist and he treated it for 25.00 and said don't worry about the cost. Great, caring doctor.

While he was there, they talked about the bass in my pond, so my brother caught 4, filleted them and took them over fresh in ice water so that they wouldn't be frozen. The doc said if he had any more skin cancers, come see him and bring some fish.

peachblossom 09/27/09 - 07:27 am
The point

When my late husband had a growth that turned out to be a carcinoma blocking his bile duct, Dr Kunze at HH Hospital sent us to MUSC in Charleston because he was honest and humble enought to admit that they were better equipped to complete the procedure and to do probable follow-up surgery. After that we spent a lot of time at MUSC, and I saw how kind they were to ALL their patients, rich or poor. Everybody got to enjoy the beautiful rooms and surroundings and dedicated care. To me, it was the way health care is supposed to be. I'm not sure it's that way everywhere, and I'm not sure it's even that way at MUSC these days. I hope so, but the attitudes about "us" and "them" that I keep reading make me wonder. And of course most institutions are operating on reduced funding.

The point is not that every institution in the USA is less good than those in 36 other countries. It's that across the board health care for Americans is less good than it is in those other places. We should be asking why that is the case instead of focusing on the pockets of excellence in medicine that we all know exist in the USA.

The Cleveland Clinic is a great example of excellence, and President Obama and others have often held them up as models of cost efficiency. One notable thing about CC is that it pays its doctors a salary rather than fees for service. That shouldn't make a difference, but it does. On salary, doctors have no incentive to perform any more procedures than are absolutely required, which, sad to say, has been an issue even locally. (Think the whole Dr. Jamie Johnston mess.)

heron55 09/27/09 - 07:51 am
pb-salaried doctors

I noticed that Beaufort Memorial started hiring staff doctors on salary some years ago. It worked out better and now they have a full staff of salaried doctors.

Of course we still have the independent doctors and groups of doctors like at Lowcountry Medical where they have a full range of specialists and family practitioners.

I think the system works better for the patients. Outpatient is handled by the independents, while in hospital is handled by staff doctors coordinating with the patients outpatient doc. Care for the patient is assigned to a staff doc and results in quicker response to needs.

The benefit is that in the past, all docs were outpatient and sometimes the hospital had problems finding the patient's doc. Patients may have waited for hours before the doc could get in to see his patient, while the hospital staff did the best they could.

It also gives the doctors a saner lifestyle. Doctors used to get emergency phone calls in the middle of the night and sometimes had to go out. Makes for a long day and a terrible family life.

Now, outpatient docs have business hours and go home like normal people. Salaried docs have a shift schedule, so they also have some normal family time.

It is a win-win for the patients and the docs.

mamasally001 09/27/09 - 09:29 am

My husband was a surgeon for 25 years.  One day a fisherman came in with a gangrenous finger from a catfish spine.  He could not afford doctors so tried to treat it himself.  It had to be amputated.  Even though my hubby said don't worry about payment, the fisherman being a man of great integrity, asked if we liked seafood.  Oh, yeah.  For a year, once a week, there was a cooler full of fresh fish, shucked oysters, smoked mullet (yum!) and whatever was in his catch, outside our office door.  He paid for that finger about five times.

We also had a deck built by a carpenter who wanted a vasectomy, but that's another story.

This summer, hubby was diagnosed with a cancer.  We spent two weeks at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville. "World Class" doesn't begin to describe it.  "Himself" was operated on and is doing just great. His surgeon did rounds both in the morning and afternoon, every day.  All ancillary personnel were caring, kind and most of all, devoted to doing the very best for the patient.  

Mayo Clinic is without a doubt the guide by which all medical facilities should be judged. 

Even the food is good.  

yelvington 09/27/09 - 11:22 am
We were at the hospital all night

I had to take my wife to the ER at Doctor's Hospital in Augusta at 1:30 a.m. today because of extreme pain in her arm.

She's been recovering from swine flu for two weeks. She went back to work Friday (behavioral therapist for autistic kids), and Saturday she drove the high-school swim team that she coaches down to Hilton Head for a meet. She pushed herself way too hard, too fast.

After an afternoon at the beach and a trip to Hudson's restaurant, she got home around 10, coughed until she puked, then slept until waking up with the (frightening) arm pain.

Now she's checked into a hospital room, wired up to monitoring equipment. She'll be tonight as well.

So far she's had a bunch of meds, X-rays, an electrocardiogram and a CAT scan. A stress test is likely later today.

It's all piling up a huge bill. We're fortunate to be covered both by the Morris Communications insurance and by the Columbia County Board of Education, so it's probably just going to nick me for $100 deductible.

If we weren't covered by insurance, the hospital would be legally required to provide emergency care without regard to ability to pay.

However, it would hand the full bill over to a collection agency. A bill like that would be enough to put a lot of people into bankruptcy overnight.

There are 46.3 million Americans without health insurance. Many of them aren't covered because they lost their jobs due to the recession. Others are employed by small businesses that can't afford to provide coverage.

For them, just one incident like we had last night could result in homelessness. In fact, most personal bankruptcies in the United States are caused by medical expenses.

What I don't get is the anti-Obama screeching from the right-wing crazies about "socialism."

Medicare is a government program. Social Security is a government program. Right-wingers have been screaming about how unions are a communist plot since the 1920s.

So if you're enjoying SEIU coverage, or Medicare, or Social Security, it might be wise to consider which side of the trough you're eating from.

Bobcat 09/27/09 - 01:07 pm
First of all, I hope that

First of all, I hope that your wife is feeling better soon. Flu is nothing to mess with, especially as one grows older.

However, government is NOT the answer to cure our health care problems.

Yes, a hospital stay with multi treatments would cost people a lot of money, IF they weren't insured. You and your wife ARE insured (as most American's are), and you stated it will probably only cost you about 100 bucks.
So, how about concentrating on ways to make insurance more affordable to people that don't have it? Why is it that so many people seem to feel that "government" should be the answer / cure to their problems?
How about TORT reform? How about tax credits to help people / businesses purchase insurance? How about allowing small businesses to pool employees together (with other small businesses) so they can purchase insurance coverage at discounted rates? How about allowing people to purchase insurance from any of our 50 States (instead of just the state you live in), which would open up competition overnight?

Yes yelvington, Soc. Sec. is a government run program.
Guess what? It's BROKE.
Medicare is (somewhat) a government run program.
It's also BROKE.
Medicaid? BROKE.
So, how long do you think it would be before ANOTHER government run health care program would go broke?

And btw: We don't have 46 million uninsured Americans in this country. No matter how many times you folks on the Left keep repeating this figure (or one close to it), it will not make it a fact.

heron55 09/27/09 - 12:41 pm

There have been several blogs of debates here on Medicare. I'll not go into detail, but suffice it to say that Medicare is not a fully run federal program and it doesn't have federal employers handling the claims. It is a federal/state program and private health insurance companies bid to administer the program in each state. In SC, it is Palmetto GBA, a nonprofit company franchised by Blue Cross, another non-profit. This builds in some fairness and protection with federal, state and private enterprises involved.

Of course no one of knows exactly what the public option might be because there is no bill in congress. What we have are the proponents, like Schumer and Pelosi being quoted.

They want a federally owned and operated company with government employees administering the program. They claim that the competition of a government run program against private companies will lower premiums. They don't mention that there are many private companies already competing against each other. There is no monopoly as they suggest.

For many Americans, that is a socialist move and the majority of likely voters, according to polls from Ramussen and Gallup, is unpopular.

I don't understand how people can say they want a public option not knowing anything about what it might be.

Bobcat 09/27/09 - 01:40 pm
"I don't understand how


Excellent point, heron.

And it seems, we the people, won't get a chance to take a look at what's in the final Bill either. Republicans tried adding an amendment (Jim Bunning -Kentucky) to the Bill that would have required posting the Bill on the internet 72hrs prior to a vote. It also would have required a waiting period to allow the CBO time to give congress (and the taxpayers)an estimate of what this Bill will wind up costing us.
Makes sense, right? Shouldn't our elected officials READ the Bill, and know how much the Bill will COST before they place their vote?
Well, the vote was down party lines, except for 1 dem voting for it (Blanche Lincoln -ARK) and the democrats threw it out.
I guess the language in the Bill, or it's cost to American taxpayers don't mean that much afterall. At least not enought to stop an agenda being pushed.

I asked on another blog, what happened to Obama's promise to post Bills on the internet prior to their vote? What happened to Obama saying this would be the most transparent administration in history??
I also keep asking, what is it about this Bill that has democrats not wanting people to read it, or know it's cost?
Nobody seems to have an answer.

Looks to me like this Bill, like the stimulas Bill, will be yet another trillion dollar mess that won't be read by anyone (including those voting on it) prior to passing, and will be forced down America's throat as quickly as the dems can get it done.

....And WHERE IS OUR MEDIA looking out for us with all of this!?
What a joke and a discrace they have become.

yelvington 09/27/09 - 01:53 pm
Uninsured and social programs

Dismissing inconvenient facts is no way to arrive at a reasoned solution to a problem. The uninsured numbers are not the invention of some imaginary leftist conspiracy. They are Census Bureau data gathered by the Republican Bush administration.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are social programs and are not "broke." They have to be funded by current tax revenue.

It is a huge mistake to think of the Social Security fund as a government-administered piggy bank. It doesn't work that way. If there is not enough money to cover Social Security costs, if the floating fund is shrinking, then it's because those of us who are working are not paying enough taxes to cover our obligation to support those who built this country.

You can call me a leftist if you want, but I think I am quite in the center. I think both private enterprise and public works are important parts of the foundation of the United States, and knee-jerk reactions against public hospitals, libraries, roads, schools, utilities and transit systems are rather un-American.

Pragmatism has been described as the core philosophy of America. I favor doing what works, and there's huge evidence that what we're doing right now costs way more and delivers way less than what's being done in some other countries.

yelvington 09/27/09 - 02:07 pm
Text of the Senate bill

Bobcat, legislation is routinely posted on the Internet and has been for years. The text of the Senate "Affordable Health Care Act" bill is at http://help.senate.gov/BAI09I50_xml.pdf.

The posting, or non-posting, of Congressional documents is handled by Congress, not by the president. The Library of Congress started putting all legislation on the Internet during the Clinton administration:


Willy 09/27/09 - 02:58 pm
Bush Census ?

Bush came up with that figure? Let's have an open mind and look just a bit deeper at that number.


heron55 09/27/09 - 04:08 pm
Tev-Medicare again

My wife and I are on Medicare and we pay 192.84 per month for Parts A& B. That is almost the same amount we were paying under a private plan for the specific benefits. We have Part D with a private company, which is for prescriptions. Medicare may be "going broke", but it is because medical costs are going up and also there are more people requesting low income supplements. Taxpayers have to pay for those low income supplements and the feds are not adjusting for those folks. They also may have to raise our rates who are paying full price.

Social security does need the tax raised and the maximum to be taxed raised. I know what I "contributed" from the tax statement received when applying for SS benefits. I have already received more than I paid in.

One of the faults of the SS plan is that when the plan began in 1935, people did not live as long. Maybe the actuarial tables need adjusting to today's lifespan and adjustments made.

Another reason the fund is being depleted is the beginning of the baby boomers applications. It will get worse before it gets better. After the baby boom generation dies off, the fund may begin to recuperate.

The whole SS system has to be reworked, but congress is afraid to touch it.

The debate over public and private will continue. But remember that public highways use private businesses for construction. Public libraries and public schools are mostly locally managed and locally funded. Local public transportation companies like in cities are locally managed and funded. Even the military uses private contractors for support. Parris Island and the MCAS has private contractors supplying services like food and uniforms as well as maintenance. Even the weapons, aircraft and other equipment are made by private companies.

The U S Postal Service and Amtrak are the only fully government owned and operated businesses that I know of, but they operate independently from the government. Congress doesn't control or manage either. Of course all of their supplies and vehicles are from private businesses. They have nationalized the private companies that used to provide those services. Are we better off? Could FedEx and UPS do mail service cheaper or provide better service? Would the former micx of private railroads so a better job? At least those private companies would be paying local, state and federal taxes. A debate for another time.

Bobcat 09/27/09 - 05:25 pm
Even Obama adjusted his

Even Obama adjusted his figure the other night when he spoke to Congress. After quoting the 45-50 million uninsured figure during his campaign, he went with the more accurate figure of 30 million uninsured AMERICANS for his speach. Plus, when you break down that 30 million figure, and weed out the folks that CHOOSE not to buy insurance because they're young and healthy, toss out the people that are wealthy and choose to simply pay their doctor bills in cash, and then toss out the folks that are actually eligible for madicaid, but don't know it or haven't signed up for it, then that 30 million figure shrinks even more.

As far as posting congressional documents, yes, several do get posted but a lot of times it isn't the final draft of a Bill. Many times the actual Bill that gets voted on doesn't make it to the internet until after the vote, if it makes it online at all.
Like I said earlier, the democrats voted to make SURE the final draft of the healthcare Bill doesn't get online 72hrs before the vote, and they also voted not to allow the CBO to tally the total before voting.
Again I'll ask, WHY would they vote that way?

As far a Soc. Sec. goes, I see you have the answer.

......Isn't that the answer to EVERYTHING????

heron55 09/27/09 - 05:55 pm
Another zinger

Obama says that the public option will lower premiums because the new government run insurance company will negotiate with providers to give a lower cost.

Sure. I can see federal,negotiators going to Hilton Head Hospital or Beaufort Memorial. The government suits will say we will provide you with more patients from our patient base if you give us a lower price than the private companies. The hospital negotiators will say, "Why should we give you a lower price. We already have a full load and the private companies pay more. How do you rate a lower price?" (Meaning stuff the plan where the sun don't shine).

But don't underestimate the power of Washington. They might come back and say, I read where you need to expand your facilities. What if we sweeten the deal and promise a 10 million dollar grant under the XXXXXX bill? Something privately run companies can't do.

If the congress promises a couple of billion to improve facilities, they might persuade providers and doctors to fly with lower charges and make public option work.

But the bottom line is, we taxpayers are footing the bill and the proponents of the public option will tout their lower costs. At least for awhile. After all, the newly expanded facilities require staff and equipment. So the hospitals will be stuck with higher operating expenses. So will the suits from government bait again or just accept the rates that private companies pay? "Oh, we'll cross that bridge in the future."

Americansouth 09/28/09 - 08:03 am
It seems that most of the

It seems that most of the regular participants at this site have grown tired of this topic. I would guess it's mainly due to the outlandishly hypothetical and hyperbolic gibberish similar to that that heron just offered.

Heron, you forgot the part about the killing fields for the elderly and dunking babies in vats of boiling oil.


heron55 09/28/09 - 08:23 am

The issue was negotiating for lower prices under Obamacare. He has publicly stated that's one way he will save money. Is it realistic to think providers, already strapped by low and slow Medicare/Medicaid payments will allow even lower charges? Many doctors and private hospitals are already rejecting Medicare and Medicaid patients. Do you think he is realistic or just naive?

So my gibberish was tongue in cheek. Maybe somebody got a smile out of it.

I think we are becoming tired of the health care topic. But it is important and the suits in congress keep changing the parameters. But they are listening to the protesters and other voices being raised.

Like any other topic, those that tire of health care simply drop out. Frankly, I skip over the illegals topic anymore.

Americansouth 09/28/09 - 10:12 am
"The issue was negotiating

"The issue was negotiating for lower prices under Obamacare"

Do you have a copy of this so-called Obamacare? Just more hypothetical gibberish...not laughing. Sorry.

"...providers, already strapped by low and slow Medicare/Medicaid payments will allow even lower charges? More hypothetical.

Fact is (facts..Hmmm), right here in the Hilton Head area is where many of the providers are choosing to pack up and move elsewhere because the state has say in what BC&BS pays the providers. And, as you have mentioned before, states have paired with private insurers to provide Medicare and Medicaid payments to providers, and they are also pay some of the lowest payments in the nation. So the state of South Carolina is known for not only having the the worst schools in the nation, but also the worst provider reimbursement rates and health care service. So why are "we" supposed to be influenced as to what the leaders and people of this state who oppose health care reform think?

I just don't see how one can criticize a PROPOSED plan when the actual system that they seem to support is the absolute least effective and of it's kind.

Many doctors and private hospitals are already rejecting Medicare and Medicaid patients."

Where's the proof of that, heron? Of course, you'll suggest that I try to find it on my own, because you will claim that it's common knowledge...


heron55 09/28/09 - 10:38 am
AS_more on health care

I guess you didn't listen to the Obama media barrage about health care and his claim that negotiations would be essential for reducing costs. Lots of links available.

One of the problems with Medicare, but more so on Medicaid is that the feds fund about 56 cents on the dollar for all costs. States have to provide the rest after receiving premiums and many states are in financial trouble with the poor economy. So it is mainly a state problem in paying bills.

As for rejecting Medicare (low income subsidized) and Medicaid, you are right. I'm not a reporter that has to back up opinions. If anyone disagrees, fine and if you need to prove it, do so. I think it is common knowledge.

As for articles, this Time Magazine article, which usually supports liberal issues, is interesting on "The Fatal Flaws of Obamacare."


heron55 09/28/09 - 12:21 pm
Latest Ramussen report

The latest Ramussen report shows most Americans do not support the current health plan and in fact support has dropped recently.



Americansouth 09/28/09 - 02:04 pm
heron, you are still not

heron, you are still not answering the question. What is Obamacare, and do you have a copy of his proposal that we all can read?

"So it is mainly a state problem in paying bills."

Yes, I agree. And South Carolina is one of the worst in the country at doing so--paying, that is. So why should the rest of the nation be influenced by the leaders of a state who are the worst at something? Especially something as important as health-care?

I'm not sure what your point was of linking the Time article, but I liked this part:

More Related



I especially liked the last part: "So the system is an unsustainable disaster, but you can keep your piece of it if you want."

Hey, God bless America. The great thing about Obama's statement is that if you really enjoy being royally screwed by your current health-care insurer, you can continue with doing so. I guess you just can't govern stupid. Can I get an LOL?


heron55 09/28/09 - 01:52 pm
AS-no I don't

No, I don't have a written copy of Obamacare. My opinion is from news accounts of what he is promising. Even the Whitehouse.org does not post what he is saying in the media. However, his "plan" is not in congress. Maybe if it gets there, we will see a written plan.

But he seems to think our present health system is a unsustainable disaster. Wonder why the majority of Americans disagree. They do agree that some reforms are needed, but until congress presents a realistic plan, the majority will still disagree.

The majority is also satisfied with their present insurance plans. Is everyone happy, no. But there are some people who would gripe if the entire plan was free.

If the boat is leaking, but not sinking, fix the leaks. Don't blow a hole in the bottom to get rid of the leaks.

peachblossom 09/28/09 - 02:23 pm
Here's your LOL, AS. :>D

Here's your LOL, AS. :>D

Isn't it interesting that the bulk and intensity of of the opposition to what people think has been proposed is among seniors. 59% of seniors say they don't like whatever it is even though they are unlikely to be affected by it unless they have the heavily-subsidized Medicare Advantage plans. I think that every senior who is against government run health care should turn in his/her Medicare card and apply for one of those bargains that comes out of their FAX machines. They might learn that shopping on the free market isn't all that easy or cheap.

And isn't it also interesting that 78% of those polled would be in favor of a plan identical to what is offered to members of Congress? Wouldn't that also be a government-run plan? And don't taxpayers cover about 2/3 of the cost for Congress' plan? How does any of this make sense?

I think what we're seeing here is not opposition to any particular proposal but a reaction to the negative BS that has permeated the discussion about this topic and everything else Obama-related since he was inaugurated.

"... the fundamental test of a society is how it treats the least powerful among us." --- Edward Moore Kennedy, August 1992

Americansouth 09/28/09 - 02:40 pm
Here's something that was

Here's something that was never covered before. Heron, do you happen to sell insurance? I know that you have a degree in science, and that you once worked for a private school, but you also have stated that you have clients. In what field do you have clients? Just wondering.

I'm wondering because I was just talking to an individual who had attended a local "town-hall" sort of thing, and she told me more than once that there was also a number of people in the insurance biz who used phrases similar to the one you just mentioned: "If the boat is leaking, but not sinking, fix the leaks. Don't blow a hole in the bottom to get rid of the leaks.".

Who says the boat isn't actually sinking?

Since you seem to like the hypothetical so much, how's 'bout this one:

Let's say that the US was to switch to a totally government-run health-care system. Now, don't have a conniption, this is just a hypothetical. Under the government-run plan, an existing company with 100 employees--based on an employer's average cost of insuring its employees of $10,000/year, the company would save $1M in expenses. Of course, the cost of insuring all of those people would require the business to pay higher taxes. However, since the companies have already been subsidized (I know how much you love that word) by the rest of the nation by allowing businesses to pay for insurance with pre-tax dollars, the increase in taxes would not actually be that great.

And now that everyone in the nation is pooled together in one giant group, the task of spreading the cost is much more simple and more effective. It only seems to make scene, my little hypothetical scenario. Just think, businesses would have more working capital, employees could be offered higher wages and more entrepreneurs would be able to add to the GDP. But, I know, that whole idea is just simply un-American.

Is the boat sinking? I say it is. And not only is it sinking, but there are also loads of sharks in the water.


heron55 09/28/09 - 03:54 pm

Why would a government run insurance company give lower rates than the existing plans? You are making a lot of assumptions when a government run plan would be 10,000.00 and be cheaper than private companies competing against each other.

If the government can do a better job, why stop with health? Why not life insurance, homweowner's insurance and car insurance?

In fact why stop there? If government can do better than private, why not government housing instead of private homes? Or government made cars, like in Russia or China? Why not a government run food distribution system and get rid of all those Publix, Kroger and other food stores? We could even have government run farms to grow our food. Who needs all those farmers anyway making money? Or a government newspaper instead of all the rags, like NYT, Chicago Tribune, The State in Columbia or even the BT?

You see the trend? Socialism. Plain and simple.

peachblossom 09/28/09 - 04:38 pm
I'm sure you'll have

I'm sure you'll have a great answer to heron's questions, AS, but let me just throw this in:

Heron, you keep wanting to equate health, meaning the physical well-being of human beings, with every other good in existence. That just doesn't work in a civilized society, where human beings are not considered widgets or houses or newspapers and human survival is ranked above every other priority. Seriously!


heron55 09/28/09 - 05:38 pm

I agree, but all of us humans need basics like food, water, clothing and shelter. Been that way since history began. Any more, it seems health care has been added to the list. But it has only become a "necessity" of life in the last 100 years. We have become a society fixated on having health problems fixed by a doctor or hospital, where say a hundred years ago, a doctor was a luxury or for real emergencies and most people used home remedies and put up with inconvenient aches and pains. Now we have to have a Mayo Clinic. (OK, that's too dramatic) But on the positive side, we are living longer and have a better quality of life.

But we're not debating health care, but the insurance to afford health care. Isn't that what congress is debating? Health insurance? And aren't the majority of folks covered under a health policy and don't the Ramussen and Gallup polls show that the majority are satisfied with their insurance and their health care?

And isn't a part of the debate a decision to reform the private insurance system or to have the government form a government company, an idea most Americans reject because they do think it would be a move toward socialism?

Agree or not, politically congress has to make note of those polls and attitudes of the majority. To ignore them is a sure way to lose seats in 2010 and 2012.

Back to Top

Get news delivered by e-mail!

Recent comments