tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post7668094301213696531..comments2023-09-28T06:26:17.117-04:00Comments on Margaritas on Friday: DoocifiedAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06977037199043174741noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-17186963599374276722008-09-18T18:57:00.000-04:002008-09-18T18:57:00.000-04:00http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Hom...http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/HomeMortgageSavings/HowToFixHealthCare.aspx#pageTopAnchor <BR/><BR/>interesting ideasKristahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193832252640431234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-50756107992493650342008-09-12T16:18:00.000-04:002008-09-12T16:18:00.000-04:00don't worry Katie. we will love you no matter you...don't worry Katie. we will love you no matter your political views. btw, a law abiding citizen isn't going to kill you. that would make them a non law abiding citizen. also, the gang bangers and people committing gun violence aren't registering for weapons in the first place and certainly not dealing w/ a waiting period. the go to a back ally and purchase non registered guns immediately. I agree their should be a waiting period but if it were up to the libs, none of us would be able to own guns at all.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18159939922719008700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-54183530057638868012008-09-11T20:52:00.000-04:002008-09-11T20:52:00.000-04:00I could go on ALL day. But I will stop now b/c I ...I could go on ALL day. But I will stop now b/c I do not want you to hate me. We just disagree on our next president! <BR/><BR/>SCARY!!!!! <BR/>John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms.<BR/><BR/>Super, so that poor guy with no healthcare coverage, etc. can now go to the gun store...find a gun and take it away with him RIGHT now and go kill me. GREAT!Katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06427562830392186435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-81895954658366804942008-09-11T20:46:00.000-04:002008-09-11T20:46:00.000-04:00From McCain's website: However, the reversal of Ro...From McCain's website: <BR/><BR/>However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. <BR/><BR/>Sounds to me like McCain is going to try and control this decision. I have a hard time with that as well.Katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06427562830392186435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-7571902249619722312008-09-11T17:12:00.000-04:002008-09-11T17:12:00.000-04:00my last comment for this post b/c i'm getting obse...my last comment for this post b/c i'm getting obsessed...<BR/><BR/>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-tanner5apr05,0,2227144.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail<BR/><BR/>Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets<BR/><BR/>Patients in countries that provide government insurance often experience hurdles to care such as extremely long waitlists.<BR/><BR/>By Michael Tanner and Michael Cannon, MICHAEL TANNER is director of health and welfare studies and MICHAEL CANNON is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute. <BR/><BR/>April 5, 2007 <BR/>AS THEY TACK left and right state by state, the Democratic presidential contenders can't agree on much. But one cause they all support — along with Republicans such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and California's own Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — is universal health coverage. And all of them are wrong.<BR/><BR/>What these politicians and many other Americans fail to understand is that there's a big difference between universal coverage and actual access to medical care.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare."<BR/><BR/>Supporters of universal coverage fear that people without health insurance will be denied the healthcare they need. Of course, all Americans already have access to at least emergency care. Hospitals are legally obligated to provide care regardless of ability to pay, and although physicians do not face the same legal requirements, we do not hear of many who are willing to deny treatment because a patient lacks insurance. <BR/><BR/>You may think it is self-evident that the uninsured may forgo preventive care or receive a lower quality of care. And yet, in reviewing all the academic literature on the subject, Helen Levy of the University of Michigan's Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, were unable to establish a "causal relationship" between health insurance and better health. Believe it or not, there is "no evidence," Levy and Meltzer wrote, that expanding insurance coverage is a cost-effective way to promote health. Similarly, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year found that, although far too many Americans were not receiving the appropriate standard of care, "health insurance status was largely unrelated to the quality of care." <BR/><BR/><BR/>Another common concern is that the young and healthy will go without insurance, leaving a risk pool of older and sicker people. This results in higher insurance premiums for those who are insured. But that's only true if the law forbids insurers from charging their customers according to the cost of covering them. If companies can charge more to cover people who are likely to need more care — smokers, the elderly, etc. — then it won't make any difference who does or doesn't buy insurance.<BR/><BR/>Finally, some suggest that when people without health insurance receive treatment, the cost of their care is passed along to the rest of us. This is undeniably true. Yet, it is a manageable problem. According to Jack Hadley and John Holahan of the left-leaning Urban Institute, uncompensated care for the uninsured amounts to less than 3% of total healthcare spending — a real cost, no doubt, but hardly a crisis.<BR/><BR/>Everyone agrees that far too many Americans lack health insurance. But covering the uninsured comes about as a byproduct of getting other things right. The real danger is that our national obsession with universal coverage will lead us to neglect reforms — such as enacting a standard health insurance deduction, expanding health savings accounts and deregulating insurance markets — that could truly expand coverage, improve quality and make care more affordable<BR/><BR/>As H. L. Mencken said: "For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." Universal healthcare is a textbook case.Kristahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193832252640431234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-64408016404540646022008-09-11T16:47:00.000-04:002008-09-11T16:47:00.000-04:00Last comment: Medicaid encourages MD's to the bar...Last comment: Medicaid encourages MD's to the bare minimum. They get paid a certain amt no matter what (and it's usu very little) so they just follow the outlined protocol. This is not something bright, innovative, young people will want to pursue - especially if you only make a salary. They'll have the same level of motivation as the people at the DMV do to move you along. They get paid the same regardless, so why hustle? Why improve? The gov't is gonna pay them the same either way. <BR/>Medicaid has not helped to better treat patients and prevent disease. Patients can only get med's based solely on how cheap they are. Companies usu lose money if they deal with the gov't and have their product available on medicaid. Why don't you do the gov't program, let them mandate when/how/why you can go and tell you that you can't use the current meds that are available - and possibly have more efficacy, more safety - b/c they aren't on the formulary. Instead, you can take subpar medicine 3 times a day and then have surgery in a few months. <BR/>Medicaid does not encourage routine checks, adherence to medicine, or better outcomes. BECAUSE patients still have to be accountable for themselves.Kristahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193832252640431234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-55948182111715748272008-09-11T16:42:00.000-04:002008-09-11T16:42:00.000-04:00correction to the above (last couple sentences): ...correction to the above (last couple sentences): <BR/><BR/>REgardless which candidate wine, there will be changes. (not necc for the better)<BR/><BR/>I want to live a peaceful, perfect world, too, but it's not real life. We are currently doing more than enough for most of the "poor" people in America. (BTW, do you know that the difference b/w the "top" income earners and the "bottom" is becoming less and less (per the IRS, comparing the last 10 yrs)? The gov't is effectively redistributing our wealth. Where are they given that right? In the Constitution? I think not.)Kristahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193832252640431234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-57248913599186642942008-09-11T16:33:00.000-04:002008-09-11T16:33:00.000-04:00I would never say that our current public educatio...I would never say that our current public education system is a success. Given the choice, nearly EVERY ONE would send their child to private school. i know that I would! McCain's plan for a voucher system encourages COMPETITION - which drives better products, better educations, etc. - rather than guaranteeing the sub par product that is available most everywhere. Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule - and there are many AMAZING teachers out there. Those teachers should be rewarded and the others - like those that participated in the public school that recently lost it's accrediation in S Atlanta - may need to find another job or another profession. That's life and it's good b/c it gets rid of the waste - - the only unfortunate thing is that the kids that were going to that gov't school got screwed in the whole deal. The voucher system would allow you to "take" your tax dollars to any school and send your child there. Now that's a helluva idea rather than just more of that same. If y'all want to keep giving more and more and more tax dollars then please feel free. But, your decision should not affect me or my money. I pay enough taxes already and think that the programs where they are being spent - medicaid included - are much less efficient & less effective than what private organizations can provide. <BR/><BR/>Don't we have a form of "universal" healthcare now? I mean, seriously - Medicaid and Medicare? Most of the MD's that I call on REFUSE to take Medicare because it is not worth their time, i.e., they don't make any money. Y'know what, profitability is a BIG motive and one that I would argue is one of the most important drivers of new products. Obama's plan will def include more taxes, and "putting restrictions" on MD's - are you kidding me? That is horrible! I agree that our current system needs to be reworked but the infertility treatments that I am gong through right now are 99% "off label" but the MD has seen them work in her practice in the past. So, now Obama and his clan have a MD after their names and they get to decide that my doctor, whom I pay 100% to see, can or cannot prescribe a therapy for me? I think not. I am paying for it and as soon as he starts mandating this or mandating that in the healthcare industry, it's all over. People CAN get healthcare now. An ER is not allowed to turn anyone away. There is Medicaid, etc. And there are options for people to pursue, too, to create a better life for themselves but it's not my job to pay for them while they have baby after baby, take their welfare check and cash it, etc. I support helping people get a start and then it's up to them.<BR/><BR/>Back to Medicaid - I woudl argue that it is possibly an EFFICIENT but hardly an EFFECTIVE treatment regime. The offices that I call on that accept Medicaid are falling to pieces (b/c they can't afford to fix the place since THE GOV'T doesn't pay and mandates the MD's every move, which in itself, will drive smart people out of the medical profession). The patients are not "better" off b/c you know what - they have to take RESPONSIBILITY for themselves to schedule an appt and they don't even want to do that! So, should the gov't go to each persons house and ask them what day is best for them, make an appt, and then drive them there? <BR/>Everyone can get healthcare now and regardless which candidate wins, there will be changes for the better. McCains program is "fluff" as much as Obama's plan is "right" for America. I mean, if people want more gov't control, why not move to one of the other nations with sub-par medical care? I think our society would be better off without people consistently wanting their hands held.Kristahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193832252640431234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-58658192220336004452008-09-11T14:54:00.000-04:002008-09-11T14:54:00.000-04:00"You have no "right" to his time or property. You ..."You have no "right" to his time or property. You have no right to his or any other person's life or to any portion thereof."<BR/><BR/>Does the same apply to teachers? Teachers are still paid for their services. Just not nearly compensated to the extent they are worth....like doctors. Isn't it so nice that Obama has a plan to compensate QUALITY teachers that go above and beyond? I sure hope that plan goes into effect before my children enter school. I will be really happy to have a teacher doing her best for that extra bonus. I was never that lucky....however I still worked hard to be the best teacher ever, definitely NOT the norm.Katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06427562830392186435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-8498605966813616032008-09-11T14:43:00.000-04:002008-09-11T14:43:00.000-04:00'Tis true that there is no right in the Constituti...'Tis true that there is no right in the Constitution for healthcare, housing, or employment. In fact, all the Constitution offers is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Most of our rights are spelled out, well, in the Bill of Rights.<BR/><BR/>That said, what is life without a home? what is liberty without health? What is the pursuit of happiness without the means to attain it? <BR/><BR/>Not to be misunderstood, I'm not trying to make an exact comparison or say govt. should automatically provide these things (that would be socialism or communism). What I am saying is that it seems to me to be in the interest of the nation, and in a more noble pursuit of the ideals upon which our nation was founded, to recognize that these things are interrelated. The founders did not prescribe a solution, they articulated an ideal. It would be a better nation if all had homes--as I see it, the role of govt. is to remove road blocks to achieving these goals. (like outlawing racial discrimination when applying for a home loan)<BR/><BR/>One example: providing healthcare for veterans who served our nation overseas and return home too physically and psychologically disabled to care for themselves. WE OWE them. That's not the role of charity--that's government, a collective duty and responsibility.<BR/><BR/>On a historical note, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were cribbed from John Locke, though his formula was life, liberty and the ownership of property. The founders changed the language b/c our system of slavery did not want to allow slaves to own property. That's true.<BR/><BR/>On a cultural note, Janis Joplin makes an interesting point: "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."<BR/><BR/>On a national note--take time to remember today.Martyn Oliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13238199047382574604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-62553741838392933422008-09-11T14:09:00.000-04:002008-09-11T14:09:00.000-04:00Nowhere in our Constitution are your given a right...Nowhere in our Constitution are your given a right to own a house, right to healthcare, or right to a job. sorry. It's up to YOU to make the right decisions in your life, work hard and get those things should you choose. I'm definitely not saying that the healthcare system in this country is working. it's obviously not. I'm just saying that more Government isn't the answer. again, to quote Boortz (sorry to keep using his quotes but he just phrases it beautifully): "you cannot receive health care unless some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time - his life - to you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that's his choice. You have no "right" to his time or property. You have no right to his or any other person's life or to any portion thereof." <BR/> Also, the reason we save, invest, etc is so that if things were to ever change, we wouldn't have to rely on government to bail us out. Basically, we all agree on what needs to happen in this country but disagree on how to get there.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18159939922719008700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-19371253547854429932008-09-11T08:40:00.000-04:002008-09-11T08:40:00.000-04:00Dennis, you said:"we could go around in circles fo...Dennis, you said:<BR/>"we could go around in circles forever on this. So, I will agree to disagree and leave everyone w/ one final truth:<BR/><BR/>No one in in this country has a right to the following:<BR/>1. Healthcare<BR/>2. Purchase a house<BR/>3. A Job"<BR/><BR/>I am sorry but that is not a "truth" it is your opinion. Purchasing a house and obtaining a job are CHOICES someone can make. Healthcare should NOT be a choice, it should be a right.....just like education. I am so glad you and Krista are doing well now and can afford this stuff. I would hate for times to change......I think you would regret your feelings.Katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06427562830392186435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-36283777469035401642008-09-11T08:37:00.000-04:002008-09-11T08:37:00.000-04:00Man, I missed A LOT!I started posting this the oth...Man, I missed A LOT!<BR/><BR/>I started posting this the other day and had to stop b/c the kids needed me.<BR/><BR/>I would argue that EDUCATION has been done better by the government than the private sector! Did you go to public school? Our taxes pay for public school......a right avaliable to EVERY child in the US. Yes, you can choose to go to private school BUT public school is avaliable. No, it may not be as amazing and cover as much as the private school down the street BUT you are covered in the education dept. I relate this to Obama's insurance idea. Yes, you CAN CHOOSE to continue your private health insurance OR you can take advantage of the government's program. Yours may be better and for that, you will pay above and beyond....like private school. I have heard people complain about paying high taxes in a nice area with good schools but at the end of the day, it is THEIR choice to spend more of their money on a private school and everyone just knows that b/c it has always been like this...since we remember. It works! Yes, we have problems: high drop-out rates, kid's falling through the cracks, low test scores, teacher burn-out, violence and crime in schools....etc. BUT it is better to have the majority of our children educated in some fashion than leave them on the streets to fend for themselves. Can you just imagine the violence, poverty, etc. then? Wouldn't it be better to provide healthcare to everyone so we do not have sick people roaming our streets, passing things, etc. Wouldn't it be better to treat that young, poor kid....maybe the one who is holding the cure for cancer? If we leave these people not-insured and without heathcare......we are making a mistake. In my opinion. You think if we continue on our current path (which I see McCain's plan as but with fancy words and fluffy ideas to just take what we have and fluff it a little), it will not affect you negetively in the financial dept. Is that all you are worried about? Everything seems to come back as "taxes", "more money", etc. You can continue to choose your docs, your insurance, etc. if you want.....just like choosing schools. Just MORE people will be covered....like our current public education program. So maybe we should follow the same idea as the one you so support in regrads to heathcare and take away all government control for education. If you CAN pay for school, great. If not, then too bad. What will happen then?<BR/><BR/>This is SO much larger than Katie, Dennis, Krista, etc. This is OUR future. Our kid's future! The world is a different place than it was 10 years ago. Plans put in place when we were younger NEED to be re-evaluated and maybe adjusted. Obviously the current situation is NOT working.<BR/><BR/>Oh and I loved the above comment about drugs developed in other countries. I bet a TON of them were but I have no facts on that.....YET!Katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06427562830392186435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-49312861621854112342008-09-11T00:12:00.000-04:002008-09-11T00:12:00.000-04:00Hey Krista,Actually, I think your point about the ...Hey Krista,<BR/><BR/>Actually, I think your point about the money pharma spends on R&D is EXACTLY what I was saying. We, the American consumer, spends money to develop these drugs (partly through cost of medicine and insurance to Pharma), and partly through taxes (NIH or whomever). Either way, WE pay to develop these drugs--and the rest of the world gets the fruits of our labors (and benefit of our dollars). Is there any drug on the market today that was developed outside of the US?<BR/><BR/>Thus, all the money we pour into healthcare is actually a subsidy for the rest of the world--a bailout, if you will. Are we cool with that? What would you rather do, produce pharma products for the Dutch, or make sure you're neighbor's kid gets her vaccines? <BR/><BR/>Also, I know Dennis and I could have a longer conversation about liberty, the individual, and rights, but I want to take it back to my first point--according to a number of studies I've read, Medicaid is more efficient than private health programs. Thoughts?<BR/><BR/>As another example, I would say the US govt. does a better job at military affairs than do private contractors--more ethically and more cost-efficiently. Compare Blackwater and the US Marine Corps. This is, I think, another example of govt. doing a job better than what private industry can. <BR/><BR/>I'm enjoying this conversation--I hope you are too!Martyn Oliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13238199047382574604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-32679547929024005262008-09-10T17:48:00.000-04:002008-09-10T17:48:00.000-04:00Hey again! Sorry, I was away from my computer all...Hey again! Sorry, I was away from my computer all day. <BR/><BR/>Just some thoughts on how the "gov" is developing drugs "for other countries"....and how/why I don't want the "gov" to be in charge of developing new medicines...<BR/><BR/><BR/>§ Vast majority of new medicines are discovered and developed by the pharmaceutical industry, not by the government. <BR/>o What, exactly is the role of the National Institutes of Health, or the NIH, in developing new medicines? The NIH provides leadership & financial support to researchers in every state & throughout the world. More than 83% of the NIH’s funding is awarded through almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 325,000 researchers at over 3,000 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions in every state & around the world. About 10% of the NIH’s budget supports projects conducted by nearly 6,000 scientists in its own laboratories. <BR/>o Pharmaceutical industry spends $39 billion a year on Research & Development whereas the NIH spends only $28 billion (2004 data)<BR/>o Of the top 50 selling medicines in the US, only four has been developed in part with technologies created by NIH funding.Kristahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193832252640431234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-13132994992129959192008-09-10T15:01:00.000-04:002008-09-10T15:01:00.000-04:00http://reason.com/news/show/128656.htmlhttp://reason.com/news/show/128656.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-59776462623600589002008-09-10T14:46:00.000-04:002008-09-10T14:46:00.000-04:00Dennis,Point well taken--i didn't mean to imply th...Dennis,<BR/><BR/>Point well taken--i didn't mean to imply that Conservatives don't care (though David Frum, a conservative, recently wrote in the NYTimes about this issue and said there does seem to be an issue with how the current administration has overseen a widening gap between rich and poor that is problematic).<BR/><BR/>My point was that, in America, land of liberty, we are always negotiating between individual rights and group rights. And, I don't think it unreasonable to say that there needs to be a balance. I'm not a socialist--I'm a midwestern pragmatist. For example, if I were a small business owner, I would want my taxes low, but I would also want a solid public education system to educate my (future) employees, decent infrastructure so people could get to my business, a healthcare system that didn't financially overburden me but also kept my workers (and family!) healthy--so they could be productive!<BR/><BR/>I didn't mean to disparage individual rights. Rather, I was making the point that there is a middle space. Perhaps as a libertarian you'd tend more in one direction myself, but I think the reality is that there must be a healthy balance. Problems happen when the balance gets out of whack--which is why the lack of affordable healthcare is such a hot-button issue today.<BR/><BR/>thoughts?Martyn Oliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13238199047382574604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-13578341248821524842008-09-10T14:44:00.000-04:002008-09-10T14:44:00.000-04:00we could go around in circles forever on this. So...we could go around in circles forever on this. So, I will agree to disagree and leave everyone w/ one final truth:<BR/><BR/>No one in in this country has a right to the following:<BR/>1. Healthcare<BR/>2. Purchase a house<BR/>3. A Job<BR/><BR/>It is up to the individual to make the correct choices in his/her life to be able to have each of those things, not the government.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18159939922719008700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-69135762027385861712008-09-10T14:32:00.000-04:002008-09-10T14:32:00.000-04:00"Part of the problem is, as a society, we tend to ..."Part of the problem is, as a society, we tend to care more for "individuals" (that is, I care about myself, you care about yourself) and not as much for our population. "<BR/><BR/>I don't see that as a problem at all. "individuals" have made this country great.<BR/><BR/>Neil Boortz perfectly explains it here: (i got this as a graduation gift from a friend and the older I get, the more true it is)<BR/>http://boortz.com/more/commencement.html<BR/><BR/> "Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear "I feel." From the Right you will hear "I think." From the Liberals you will hear references to groups --The Blacks, The Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights. <BR/><BR/>That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives and Libertarians think -- and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual. <BR/><BR/>Liberals feel that their favored groups, have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives (and Libertarians, myself among them I might add) think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses. "Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18159939922719008700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-87591286609558103522008-09-10T13:28:00.000-04:002008-09-10T13:28:00.000-04:00Krista,My first thought is that we should make thi...Krista,<BR/><BR/>My first thought is that we should make this a more formal conversation outside of the comment box!<BR/><BR/>My second thought is that healthcare is really not my speciality, so I wouldn't want to go too far in any claims.<BR/><BR/>That said, I do know of reports (and can get links) that find that Medicaid is the MOST efficient system of healthcare in the US--far more so than any private plan. So that's one example (though I'm sure that too could be debated--on both sides, people play fast and loose with money figures).<BR/><BR/>I also know this (again, can provide links)--the US spends more per capita on healthcare than ANY other nation on earth. We don't have "universal" access to health care meaning many people go without preventive care until its too late, and then end up in emergency rooms. We have the most advanced medical care in the world (to your point earlier, very true), but its only available to those who can afford it. My question is, if we have the BEST healthcare, and spend the MOST money, why can we not also cover our citizens? <BR/><BR/>Part of the problem is, as a society, we tend to care more for "individuals" (that is, I care about myself, you care about yourself) and not as much for our population. Thus, we've got crazy cosmetic surgery industries, and also people who've never been to the dentist. That's nuts. <BR/><BR/>Second, through taxes and insurance premiums (mostly the later, which one COULD call a tax--think about that), the US ends up underwriting medical R&D, which is then used by other countries. In effect, we pay for the development of technologies that Germany and China get to use for free. Is that how you want your taxes spent? Just askin'!<BR/><BR/>Really, though, I think we could have a more formal conversation about all this via our blogs--want in?Martyn Oliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13238199047382574604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-77040517020704805422008-09-09T19:19:00.000-04:002008-09-09T19:19:00.000-04:00let's not forget that McCain's healthcare plan cov...let's not forget that McCain's healthcare plan covers the old, young, poor, etc as well. also,Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18159939922719008700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-84162456800368702092008-09-09T16:07:00.000-04:002008-09-09T16:07:00.000-04:00"Or, should absolutely everything be privatized, r..."Or, should absolutely everything be privatized, roads, education and military included?"<BR/><BR/>Yes.Josh M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04054764121030646400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-71634480572642006822008-09-09T15:09:00.000-04:002008-09-09T15:09:00.000-04:00Martyn-Thanks for your post! I appreciate your co...Martyn-Thanks for your post! I appreciate your comments. <BR/><BR/>I think that taxes are for things like roads, education, and military. Things that should largely be decided on a state level and are already embedded in American's minds as what they pay taxes for. Taxes are a necessary evil - - to a certain extent. We already pay a large portion of our income in taxes and some of that is going towards the gov't health plans like medicare and medicaid, which are lackluster at best. The gov't has already proven that it cannot manage healthcare in an efficient way. Why give them an even larger hand in our lives, choices, and wallets?<BR/><BR/>The thing is that I don't trust the gov't to use my hard earned money in an efficient manner. So while I think that there is some need for taxes, I would rather give $$ to a private organization who is driven by competition to lower prices, offer new & innovative products, and do much more with that money. Especially when it comes to my health. And your health.<BR/><BR/>Can you provide one example of where the gov't has done something more efficiently than the private sector?<BR/><BR/>How do you view it?Kristahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193832252640431234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-88229718984844385302008-09-09T14:49:00.000-04:002008-09-09T14:49:00.000-04:00Hey Krista (and Dennis),I'm Trish and Kahn's frien...Hey Krista (and Dennis),<BR/><BR/>I'm Trish and Kahn's friend Martyn that she mentioned in her comment. Certainly do find your thoughts interesting, even if I disagree with much of them--thanks for posting!<BR/><BR/>One thing I would ask, in all the hoopla about taxes and healthcare (which is a sticky wicket, to be sure), when you say you want to decide what you pay for, who decides about and pays for roads? Or national defense? Or education? Would you agree that sometimes it is best for a government to use taxes for purposes that are beyond charity? Or, should absolutely everything be privatized, roads, education and military included? <BR/><BR/>Just curious--this question is often the difference between a "republican" and a libertarian point of view.<BR/><BR/>By the by, my own blog is martynoliver.blogspot.com --would certainly welcome your visit and thoughts!Martyn Oliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13238199047382574604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239285865930355215.post-35149187105837828342008-09-09T14:28:00.000-04:002008-09-09T14:28:00.000-04:00You know I never talk about politics, but I enjoy ...You know I never talk about politics, but I enjoy hearing everyone's opinions. I love that everyone is so passionate about the issues and it is good that everyone is talking about it (although I stay mum). In the words of Michael Minihan and very fitting to this topic...let's agree to disagree. I shared your blog with one of Kahn and I's best friends...these entries and discussions will be very interesting to him. I'll send you his blog too because I know you will enjoy reading his entries on politics and life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com