Why Conservatives Oppose Universal Healthcare

Because entitlements create factions that are almost impossible to overcome. Look at how the teachers union lead the Democratic candidates around like dogs on a leash even though they all send their children to upscale private schools that function nothing like the public schools.

The same would happen to health care. No matter how bad it is, underfund it is, or massive out year costs it creates, the establishment will keep it going.

If the Democrats was to prove that they can run health care, then let them succeed in running the public schools in any large city in the U.S. When Anacostia High school is as good as Georgetown Prep, then lets talk about nationalizing health care.

Superdestroyer, your concerns seem reasonable.
Yet it is my opinion that public schools work to a far greater extent than they don't work.
I would welcome a flawed universal health care strategy than our current system of survival of the fittest and wealthiest.
Apparently many countries have universal health care systems that are less expensive and more effective than ours. I choose to believe that with good leadership we could be among them.

Paul: re: yr thesis: Duh!

SD: The R's are far more endebted to corps than D's are to Unions, and the Corps have many, many more times the cash to spend, so why don't you list the links that Giuliani, McCain, Romney, etc., have to them.

The notion that stogey smoking union bigwigs run the D's shows how out of touch many Republicans are.

But, it makes for a good caricature- of whom is the real query.

A good thread, for a change. Yes, a vast new middle-class entitlement will be seen as a positive accomplishment by many (consider the views on this site alone) even as our population ages and otherwise would be becoming more conservative. Health care is a special issue, though, as the alternatives are being seen as impractial or inferior. The details of a government health care plan (most see the federal government as the agent for this, as it aids "portability" and mobility, and is a single standard; many want to keep health care providers nominally private, so they remain subject to lawsuit abuse, etc.) aren't really the issue. The main issues are that of government as the provider and of universality to make it a middle-class entitlement. I see federal health care as eventual.

Paul--

Great catch!!

It seems that even so-called conservatives understand there's a problem. They even understand there's a solution. But it's the other side's solution. So it must be stopped.

The solution is amazingly simple.

The government institutues a national health care program that is run by medicare and paid for by all of the insurance agencies. All Premiums are paid for by the Government and all corporations are then taxed accordingly to help offset the costs. A national sales tax is then implemented to pick up the cost so that everybody pays for the program. The rich buy more stuff......they pay more taxes. The poor buy less stuff, they pay less tax.

Therefore it is a bipartisan effort that is funded and paid for by both the Government, Taxes and the Republican corporate buddies. Yes it will stymie job growth and job creation for awhile but everytime someone buys a loaf of bread or a gallon of gasoline they will be reminded that they want health care.......then we all have to pay for it.

This nation has a whole bunch of huge problems facing it. The problem has been and continues to be that we use the scatter gun in a barn approach....throw some money at it, fix it a little and then move on patting ourselves on the back. That fixes nothing but it sure does get votes for incumbents. To really be effective we need to tackle one big issue at a time till we get it resolved.

The problem with treating healthcare like just another thing we pay for is that it truly is necessary for everyone, and the amount you need is not going to correlate to the amount of money you earn. That's why having an open market solution that involves insurance companies doesn't work. That's why basing coverage on employment is failing a lot of people. On the other hand, the government is not know for its ability to manage efficiently, with the exception of Medicare which is surprisingly efficient. I think I read somewhere that 2-3% of their funds are used for overhead and the rest goes directly to doctors and patients to cover medical expenses. I wonder if it's possible to expand Medicare to cover anyone who can't afford their own coverage without inflating the cost or decreasing efficiency.

Paul,

the comparison of public sector to corporations breaks down when you compare that the elite use private schools because of the severe problems in the public schools but the elite still fly the same airlines, stay at the same hotels, eat at the same restaurants as the rest of us. If you could find a corporation that all of the elite avoids because of its inferior product but that is still protected by the government, you may have an argument.

The problem is nationalize healthcare (and I discount anyone who keeps using the word "insurance" when there is nothing involving insurance), is that there will still be a three tier system.

The boutique private hospitals and practices will still be around for the elite. I doubt if Chelsea Clinton or Cate Edwards will end up in the same waiting room as some drug abusers. There will be some towns were the local government decides good healthcare is important and works to keep in working. And last, in many parts of the country, the medical system will collapse because demand will quickly exceed supply and the reimbursements will be so low that the systems will quickly be bankrupt.

Look at how Senator Obama is promising to fix the system: everyone is covered, everyone pays less but somehow they supply expands. If a Republican would have said something so stupid, the media would have savaged them. But it seems like that everyone believes that economic principles will just not apply to health care.

Also, when it comes down between patients or the hospitals workers unions, whose side to you think the Democratic party will take?

Superdestroyer,
I have a hard time appreciating arguments that lean too heavily on the exceptions and extremes. My guess is that of the more than 500,000 elected representatives in our country the overwhelming majority went to public schools and send their kids there as well.
You suggest that any and all health care systems are doomed to failure because demand will outstrip supply. This may be true, but for me the alternative is immoral. One way or another we have to deal with our family, friends and neighbors becoming ill and needing assistance.
The hard part will be the ongoing challenge of finding a humane way to apply cost/benefit analysis when medical science can keep us alive in spite of the quality of our life.

I am generally glad that you participate on this blog. Your point of view is necessary. But I do find that your persistent cynicism is a downer.

SD -- I don't understand how Republicans think the public school system can be improved when they constantly tear it down. I agree with Paul that the system isn't perfect but is better than any other alternative we can come up with. Attacking teacher unions (which I believe is a bulwark of the GOP playbook because they overwhelmingly support Democrats) and pointing out that many in high office use private schools accomplishes nothing.

Speaking of cynicism....Why the need to dig into the 30 day old wastebasket just to tee up the subject of healthcare? Has there been no more current article on what the leading Democratic candidates have had to say about their healthcare plan to serve as the introduction to the discussion?

Certainly, Paul, you cannot imagine that with 80% of the voting population not being at all interested in conservatism or the Republican party any longer that whatever any conservative happens to think now........or 13 years ago is, at best, highly irrelevant.

Superdestroyer--

Since we're indulging in stereotypes, when it comes down between patients and insurance companies, who's side do you think the Republicans will take?

Since we're indulging in stereotypes, when it comes down between patients and insurance companies, who's side do you think the Republicans (and Democrats) will take?

Depend on who's doing the buying and buyee. Hillary is a large customer of health care lobbyists. When a power shift happens the money goes to power, like cockroaches running away from light.

Paul: If you have not noticed, SD has a bunker mentality based on xenophobia and 'the other' coming after white maledom. Usually he manifests it in despair that the browns and blacks will soon make up a healthy portion of the electorate, but enough on his biases.

Somebody actually is partly right about expanding Medicare as the solution. It's the simplest and most cost effective way to get a superlarge pool of people to keep costs down. He mentions several steps, but there are problems, the most manifest is that a sales tax is the most regressive form of tax around, and allows the burden of the system to fall on the backs of the poor.
A fairer way to pay for it is, ala Soc Sec, to have a payroll tax, and also supplement it w increases in disposable income taxes- most notable Capital Gains. This is the reverse of the regressive sales tax, and puts more of a burden on those who have used the system to get rich.

Of course, this is why the rich always oppose it, because gaming the system is never enough- there are many who are not simply satisfied with winning, but rubbing the losers' faces in it.

Actually, Somebody, one of the attractive ideas to many Democrats, until their constituents howl about it and it's realized that Big Oil cannot once again be blamed, is to levy large new motor vehicle fuel taxes to raise the revenue.

The alternative is a consumption tax like a VAT, but while this is better than the income tax, it should never be done unless the income tax is abolished.

"Somebody actually is partly right about expanding Medicare as the solution."

It's the obvious as well as logical thing to do. Don't build an all-new system, extend Medicare, an existing system, to everyone and correct what are seen as mistakes with or in it.

The partly was referring to funding options. I agree it's silly to come up w a new bureaucracy when Medicare, believe it or not, runs w a 4% overhead. Think any new agency can be started with that little?

"Why the need to dig into the 30 day old wastebasket just to tee up the subject of healthcare?"

The waste is what we're currently seeing, typical Bush-bashing garbage and continued nonsense-spewing about the New Hampshire predictions versus election results vs. post-election hindsight "analysis," the record for which the "new media" is no better than the mainstream "old" media.

Health care is a serious subject.

So are a number of other subjects. For example, biofuels are, along with other alternative fuels, hyped and the subject of ridiculous hopes and dreams currently (replacing oil by 6:00 PM tomorrow), but within this subject can be found one or more serious issues worth mentioning. We already know about corn-based ethanol, for example, and how it has raised the price of corn (and land in Iowa), and which will result later in higher food prices. Alternatives to corn have been sought and for a long time switchgrass was known but wasn't pursued that much, but today it is news that switchgrass might, in fact, make a better replacement for corn than was thought of earlier. (I would like to see more research into butanol, which has an acceptably high energy density; ethanol is inferior to gasoline.)

"there will still be a three tier system"

Not under the (admittedly unconstitutional) Conyers-Kucinich plan, which outlaws private duplication of services covered by Medicare. (Their plan would forcibly convert covered services to not-for-profit without the proper compensation for several years of [increasing] profits. Specifically, they would have to compensate for the loss of 20-30 years of increasing income and what investing that income would additionally yield.)

LA Times - Chamber of Commerce vows to punish anti-business candidates

WASHINGTON -- Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business.

"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said.

Everything you need to know about who American Business supports.

Fascinating Don_Quijote.
It seems to me that Business interests are somewhat at war with themselves. The list of Major businesses is expanding that supports health care reform to remove that administrative and competitive burden, fair and uniform Pollution regulations, education reform to keep a steady flow of capable workers, immigration reform, infrastructure reform, energy policy to keep US business competitive with the rest of the world, etc.

"a national health-insurance program that would irrevocably expand government involvement in the economy and American life,

This all by itself is bad enough to me.

The Chamber has been nothing in recent years but an arm of the RNC. Somehow I'm not surprised at Donohue's vicious attack on anyone who doesn't toe the corporate line. What's funny is the constant claim about representing those who provide the jobs when in fact he represents those who fire people and move jobs overseas at least as much.

The list of Major businesses is expanding that supports health care reform to remove that administrative and competitive burden, fair and uniform Pollution regulations, education reform to keep a steady flow of capable workers, immigration reform, infrastructure reform, energy policy to keep US business competitive with the rest of the world, etc.

You'll have to show me that list cause I have yet to see it. Most businesses would bring back slavery if they could find a way of doing it and putting a nice PR gloss on it.

If business really supported those things, don't you think they would happen?

This all by itself is bad enough to me.

A health care system to die for

Between 1997–98 and 2002–03, amenable mortality fell by an average of 16 percent in all countries except the U.S., where the decline was only 4 percent. In 1997–98, the U.S. ranked 15th out of the 19 countries on this measure—ahead of only Finland, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and Ireland—with a rate of 114.7 deaths per 100,000 people. By 2002–03, the U.S. fell to last place, with 109.7 per 100,000. In the leading countries, mortality rates per 100,000 people were 64.8 in France, 71.2 in Japan, and 71.3 in Australia.

<img src="http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/amenable-mortality.jpg"/>

Far better that millions of us die before our time than have the big nasty evil government run an efficient health care system.

Don_Quijote:
Check out the "Business Roundtable." They have been relatively progressive in support of public policy.

Far better that millions of us die before our time than have the big nasty evil government run an efficient health care system.

The idea isn't that the government is big, nasty and evil, there are real pros and cons to consider when you think of replicating another system in order to make an overall improvement in an existing one.

"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.

Please read the whole thing at the link above and consider it. Nationalized health care does not ensure equal access to the system. An example would be New Zealand's elderly patients with renal failure. They have no private dialysis facilities there, while in Canada and U.K., the elderly have much more difficulty obtaining health care than in the U.S.

Half Past: Much of the claims against other nations' systems have been debunked as political mumbo jumbo, while the worst in our system, like the 17 year old girl allowed to die by Cigna, is not an exaggeration. But, to avoid bureaucracy replication, the Medicare route is the way to go. The employers and employees fund it, and one can go to any licensed doctor or dentist. Period. There'd be none of this hogwash about waiting times because the only thing that wd change from the current system is there wd be one payer- Medicare, rather than 100s.

"Half Past: Much of the claims against other nations' systems have been debunked as political mumbo jumbo,

Not if there are stats to back up those claims. One example:

Socialized Medicine: The Canadian Experience

"It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the public health system. This means that the average two-child family pays close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much more expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan."

The Medicare system also has flaws, one namely would be the funding itself:

Medicare: The next riddle for the ages

Medicare's problems are compounded by soaring health care costs, which are running at more than twice the general rate of inflation. And they're made less predictable by future medical technologies whose emergence, impact and cost are impossible to foresee.

The steps Congress could take now to restrain Medicare's growth are politically perilous. Deny end-of-life care? Restrict eligibility? Reduce treatments? Raise costs? No one in Congress is willing to take them on, and there are few options the public might accept.

"Social Security is merely the warm-up for a very big struggle over how to reform Medicare," says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. She laments that while the Social Security debate is in full throttle among policymakers, Medicare "is a discussion we haven't even started."

While it's true that there are existing controversies with private health insurance companies, political motivations are not the sole reason for the argument against socialized medicine.

Half Past: You know that stats are like lapdogs, and both sides of any issue can support or debunk both sides of a position.

As for the first claim, at my job, a family med plan (and it's a plan better than most co's) pays over $100 a week from their paycheck- and if over a certain amount of members, even more, which is equal or more to the tax claim in Canada, assuming that to be true. I've worked jobs in the last few years where even more is paid.

The US, however, is ten times as populous as Canada, so, using their system would lower the costs just by the pool size- even assuming you stated scenario is correct, not to mention, as stated above, the dead girl would not be dead.

As for Medicare's problems, again, a larger pool and the ability to force drug co's to lower costs, and for the whole nation to collectively bargain for lower costs, wd greatly reduce the very problems you claim.

Others have suggested such and similar ways to fix Medicare while also insuring the masses.

It's not as difficult a problem as made out to be. The biggest obstacle is the will to do so, not the means.

cosmoetica-

"Half Past: You know that <bstats are like lapdogs, and both sides of any issue can support or debunk both sides of a position."

Not lapdogs if you are trying to come to a solid resolve. (Did you not use your own personal stats as a point in argument?) Heresay, rather than factual data would more be likened to lapdogs if you are talking about using generalized bias as a medium to sway the public.

"The US, however, is ten times as populous as Canada, so, using their system would lower the costs just by the pool size- even assuming you stated scenario is correct, not to mention, as stated above, the dead girl would not be dead."

I am not convinced that this was a political or ulterior motive on Cigna's part. The media has a tendency to cherry pick companies and monopolize opinion. It's tragic what happened to this girl, however, just because you don't read about these tragedies coming from Canada online or off the local newstand doesn't mean they don't exist. With a larger populace, you are going to see human error. Again, I am not convinced of such events as being eliminated or lowered in number with universal health insurance.

"As for the first claim, at my job, a family med plan (and it's a plan better than most co's) pays over $100 a week from their paycheck- and if over a certain amount of members, even more, which is equal or more to the tax claim in Canada, assuming that to be true. I've worked jobs in the last few years where even more is paid."

This is your own success story, and I congratulate you for your fortunate circumstance, however, your experience would not be everyone's.

"As for Medicare's problems, again, a larger pool and the ability to force drug co's to lower costs, and for the whole nation to collectively bargain for lower costs, wd greatly reduce the very problems you claim."

Too many hands in the pot when you talk about the "whole nation" (Government money "management", tax-payers, and health care providers) bargaining on lower costs. These are not my claims, but of others that are provided as examples in my earlier comment. Being aware of them, I do share these concerns.

Oops, pardon all the bold and html typos, I need to proofread better. :p

HPM,

You quote this from one of your sources (An obviously political site, I might add.):

"It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the public health system. This means that the average two-child family pays close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much more expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan."

This is a blatant falsehood. Many private insurance plans cost more than that for a family of four. Heck, in the U.S. it can cost that much for a couple for a good plan.

JS,

"You quote this from one of your sources (An obviously political site, I might add.):"

A quote posted on an "obviously political" blog, I might add. Perhaps his stats are off, so I'll be happy to look into that. Or perhaps we differ on what we believe to be a comprehensive plan. I belong to an HMO that costs me less than $1,000 a year through my employer. "Many" private insurance plans are not all.

Here is another opinion, if you like, with a first hand witness to what the health care norm is in Canada:

Canadian Health Care Is No Model for U.S.



"Pierre Lemieux, an economist at The University of Quebec, wrote in the April 23, 2004 issue of the Wall Street Journal, "The Canadian system is built around a compulsory public insurance regime that provides most medical and hospital services free." Lemieux adds that the system is not, of course, free for the Canadian taxpayer. Twenty-two percent of all taxes raised in Canada are spent on its health care system.

Last August, the New England Journal of Medicine reported health care spending absorbs only 10 percent of the Canadian gross domestic product, compared to 14 percent of U.S. GDP. The Journal credited Canada with being more efficient in the application of administrative costs--but the real difference is explained by the fact that U.S. citizens are permitted to pay privately for health care services, while such spending does not take place in Canada. In Canada, it is illegal to seek or convey private medical assistance."

Half Past:

You are exhibiting the classic extremist mode of using exceptions to define a rule. I just ripped a guy named Somebody on another thread for doing so with definitions of words.

1) The cost of my own ins. is not a stat, but a reality. I have not indexed it to other company's premiums, etc.
2) 'I am not convinced that this was a political or ulterior motive on Cigna's part. The media has a tendency to cherry pick companies and monopolize opinion. It's tragic what happened to this girl, however, just because you don't read about these tragedies coming from Canada online or off the local newstand doesn't mean they don't exist. With a larger populace, you are going to see human error. Again, I am not convinced of such events as being eliminated or lowered in number with universal health insurance.'

C'mon. It was Cigna's beancounters. Period. Exactly why profits must be limited in this business. And you're rt- because we have not heard of a person die because his ins. denied him an operation in Canada does not mean it has not happened. Any links, then, to when it occurred. I'm sure it wd be headlines up north. Again, a link. The obverse of that is all the agitprop about bad 'socialized medicine; in Canada & Europe does not mean it's so, esp. when I've talked to Euros and Canadians who laugh at the claims that their systems are inferior.
And that's an anecdote, not a stat.
3) 'This is your own success story, and I congratulate you for your fortunate circumstance, however, your experience would not be everyone's.'
That you would even, in jest, use a term like 'success story' for a 5k a year ins, premium, shows you are out of touch w reality and working class needs. That is, technically, gouging.
4) 'Too many hands in the pot when you talk about the "whole nation" (Government money "management", tax-payers, and health care providers) bargaining on lower costs. These are not my claims, but of others that are provided as examples in my earlier comment. Being aware of them, I do share these concerns.'
Medicare & the Federal Gov't wd be the sole bargainer for the entire national pool. There wd be no need for private health ins, save for the superrich who wanted more. There's no way this is not a good thing, if you ask an actuary, or anyone versed in numbers.

Jim: As I showed, you are correct. Even assuming HPM's #s are correct, they are still equal or better to most private plans.

HPM's last post even argues against his posit, if he read it all, and was not cherrypicking.

cosmoetica-

"Half Past:

<'i>You are exhibiting the classic extremist mode of using exceptions to define a rule. I just ripped a guy named Somebody on another thread for doing so with definitions of words."

Okay, that's the funniest thing I've read today. Thanks for the word classic. Discussions should be civil and not about ego and "ripping" people. Which "rule" are you speaking of, and how many "exceptions" would it take for you to have your definition? You cannot have statistics without factual data. Sure, stats are sometimes used in a what-if format, but they are also used in necessary problem-solving.

"That you would even, in jest, use a term like 'success story' for a 5k a year ins, premium, shows you are out of touch w reality and working class needs. That is, technically, gouging."

Some pay twice as much as you because they choose to, and are also working class. Why wouldn't I understand that? If this is a burden to you, then you should have that Medicare option that is suitable for your family. But that doesn't mean we need to create one health care system that everyone has to adhere to. BTW, it's illegal in Canada for citizens to purchase private insurance. Are you ready for that kind of clamp-down?

"C'mon. It was Cigna's beancounters."

Fine, but you are missing the point that a Medicare system or Universal, government controlled system will not guarantee the end of these occurrences, because there will always be "beancounters". Again, just because you don't read about it in a newspaper as a public example, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

"Definitions of words?"

Statistics

Pronunciation:
\stə-ˈtis-tiks\
Function:
noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Etymology:
German Statistik study of political facts and figures, from New Latin statisticus of politics, from Latin status state
Date:
1770

1 : a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data 2 : a collection of quantitative data.

"Jim: As I showed, you are correct. Even assuming HPM's #s are correct, they are still equal or better to most private plans."

Again, these are not my numbers, but that of Jay Lehr, Ph.D. and Pierre Lemieux, an economist at The University of Quebec who's article you call "cherrypicking" (About a whole country?) and the "exception to said rule".

'Which "rule" are you speaking of, and how many "exceptions" would it take for you to have your definition? '

That would be the 5k a year premium in Canada as if that's the rule, as Jim stated. The exceptions would have to outnumber the rule, to supplant the rule, or 50% + 1.

'Some pay twice as much as you because they choose to, and are also working class.'

Not in this nation. Do you even know what the working class is? A family making 25-30K, pre-tax, could afford no rent nor food w a 10k premium. Again the exceptional defense.

'Fine, but you are missing the point that a Medicare system or Universal, government controlled system will not guarantee the end of these occurrences, because there will always be "beancounters".'

Politicians are cowards. Which politico would dare let a death in his district go forward- see Terri Schiavo. And, again, because you claim something does not make it so.

'1 : a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data 2 : a collection of quantitative data. '

Notice the plural forms used in the definition. Here is what I stated: 'The cost of my own ins. is not a stat, but a reality. I have not indexed it to other company's premiums, etc.' Note, I spoke simply of one fact, not indexing it against others. R-E-A=D-I-N-G. Some consider it fundamental.

'Again, these are not my numbers, but that of Jay Lehr, Ph.D. and Pierre Lemieux, an economist at The University of Quebec '

So, you are bot using the exceptional defense, but using it once removed. Ok, but it's still exceptionalism.

"Not in this nation. Do you even know what the working class is? A family making 25-30K, pre-tax, could afford no rent nor food w a 10k premium. Again the exceptional defense."

In my book, working class includes everyone that works for a living. You are just another one of those bleeding hearts that reverts to condescending remarks to "win" an argument. Allow me to reduce myself to your tactics: You have a family income of $30,000 a year and expects others with a higher income to foot the bill for your welfare. If you really wanted to change your circumstances, you would change your mindset and change your own personal circumstance to enhance the life of you and your family. And don't give me that crap about how impossible it is as a working class parent. People that want more out of life set their minds to making it happen, and don't expect anything for "free".

Politicians are cowards. Which politico would dare let a death in his district go forward- see Terri Schiavo. And, again, because you claim something does not make it so.

Nice generalization. Has nothing to do with this discussion. Yet, you want these "cowardly" politicians to work for you and give you what you want. Universal health insurance affects everyone and not just you, but I realize you are only thinking of your fact and what these "cowardly" politicians can get for you.

So, you are bot using the exceptional defense, but using it once removed. Ok, but it's still exceptionalism.

What you really wish is that I were not just taking your word for it rather than respecting the opinions of an Economist and a Ph.D.

'In my book, working class includes everyone that works for a living.'

So, CEOs are working class?
'You are just another one of those bleeding hearts that reverts to condescending remarks to "win" an argument.'

Me a bleeding heart? That's news. Or are you just immature, and revert to namecalling when losing an argument?

'Allow me to reduce myself to your tactics: You have a family income of $30,000 a year and expects others with a higher income to foot the bill for your welfare. If you really wanted to change your circumstances, you would change your mindset and change your own personal circumstance to enhance the life of you and your family. And don't give me that crap about how impossible it is as a working class parent. People that want more out of life set their minds to making it happen, and don't expect anything for "free".'

Again, an appeal to the most exceptional fallacy of all- the pull yourself up by your bootstraps ideal; save that for every person who does, there are 999 that don't, and the bulk of those who succeed do so via connections, shortcuts, and plain old luck. As for the ins., I expect every wage earner and employer to pay their fair share. I realize that the people at the top, who've benefitted the most from the economy- a free one that allows for classes, never want to chip in their fair share, but hey, evolutionary selfishness is a bitch.

'Nice generalization. Has nothing to do with this discussion. Yet, you want these "cowardly" politicians to work for you and give you what you want. Universal health insurance affects everyone and not just you, but I realize you are only thinking of your fact and what these "cowardly" politicians can get for you.'

I've survived nice w/o handouts. But universal health ins. is not a handout. All wage earners wd pay their way. The only thing universal wd do is lower costs via scale. It's really simple, if we're all in the boat then there's incentive to save costs, rather than a sea full of individual lifeboats. But, nice generalization and assumptions.

'What you really wish is that I were not just taking your word for it rather than respecting the opinions of an Economist and a Ph.D.'

You are a voice from the ether, and a none too bright one. I don't care a whit what floats your boat. But you still used an exceptional defense.

HPM,

I googled Pierre Lemieux. Did you bother? His primary credential is not as an economist but as a conservative ideologue that basically despises his own government. But wait. The same is true of Jay Lehr, a fellow of the Heartland Institute. You probably do know exactly what they are. People who have academic credentials that have absolutely no bearing on anything they write, because whatever they learned in their studies has been completely subsumed to their conservative political philosophy. In other words, every last claim they make is highly questionable.

I also notice that you make a highly questionable statement. You utilize your cost after your employer has helped out a whole lot as your basis for comparison of insurance policies. But what would need to be compared is your cost plus your employers cost plus whatever amount your employer negotiated in terms of a discount. Only that would provide a valid comparison to those who have to pay for their own insurance, which is the situation that so many people find themselves in.

It is also noticeable that conservatives only speak of Canada and England, the two systems that have the greatest problems. They do not speak of France, Spain, Sweden or other countries that have systems that are working better. Or at least, the only times I've ever seen any mention of them is when referring to articles from the European versions of AEI or Cato, which do exist. There is no desire on the part of conservatives for honest conversations on this issue, or at least no desire on the part of those conservatives whose beliefs are limited to how it can't be done if the corporate insurers and hospitals can't do it.

cosmo-

"So, you are bot using the exceptional defense, but using it once removed. Ok, but it's still exceptionalism."

Name calling? Tit for tat, I'd say. Yeah, I know the definition of bot ora bot.

My response to you is you are a bleeding heart, with just as much disdain for our government, namely one presidential candidate you refer to as a "hack". Funny, how she seems to be the only one pushing for your lollypop, Universal Health care. As JS has mentioned this same disdain toward government about the author and the subject of his article. Would that attitude alone make your opinion less viable?

JS- Contrary to popular belief, conservatives are not evil people. Even as a libertarian, I can recognize that.

Okay, let's talk about Sweden:
Sweden's welfare state: Trouble ahead

Spain

Spain’s Citizens Assess Their Health Care System

"Satisfaction with health care system: Of citizens surveyed in seven
European nations, Spaniards express the next to lowest degree of satisfaction with their current health care system."

And France. Now, France actually looks like the most feasible option that I would consider going with, because of how closely theirs resembles ours:
The French Lesson In Health Care

"That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation,, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation."

These specifics are much better than just saying "Universal Health Care" or "Medicare".

HPM:

You are the one who started calling names, and when you refer to Universal healthcare as a lollipop you show you fundamentally do not understand that all pay.

Jim: One could tell from just the 'facts' and their defenses that there was nothing there, but good catch on the ideologue.

DLS & HPM: are you reposting older posts, because some posts are showing up now after later posts.

"and when you refer to Universal healthcare as a lollipop you show you fundamentally do not understand that all pay."

My point there is that you called Hillary a hack, when she is very one offering this form of health care as part of her package if she gets elected. You also call all politicians cowards, rather than seeing them as individuals. Regardless of the exchange between you and I, a good portion of your argument is fueled by name-calling the very ones who might be able to help you.

"DLS & HPM: are you reposting older posts, because some posts are showing up now after later posts." What do you mean here? Please explain.

Lastly, you never did say what you thought of France's health care system. I happen to think it's a good one.

'My point there is that you called Hillary a hack, when she is very one offering this form of health care as part of her package if she gets elected. You also call all politicians cowards, rather than seeing them as individuals. Regardless of the exchange between you and I, a good portion of your argument is fueled by name-calling the very ones who might be able to help you.'

Hill is a hack for many reasons, and all the Dems' healthcare plans are far above the nonsense the R's offer.
I call things as I see them, and I need no help re: healthcare, but many do. I care about them. It's called kindness and looking out for the commonweal, something too often forgotten in this materialistic selfish society.

Hey, T-Steel- can you fix this thread- a DLS comment from 4 days ago, and HPM's from yester, are at the bottom over later comments.

"Hill is a hack for many reasons, and all the Dems' healthcare plans are far above the nonsense the R's offer."

Okay, here is where you need to specify, rather than "all the Dems" and "nonsense the R's offer." As I am not affected by said "nonsense", you need to break it down more specifically if you are going to call it that. I'm am not lacking, but not part of the rich, either. Common welfare should be everyone's business to an extent, but not without a clear game plan that is fair to everyone.

I'm not a fan of Hillary's at all, but tell me what you mean by her being a hack, at least how that would interfere with the health plan she proposes?

'"all the Dems"' = all the D candidates for Prez.

'"nonsense the R's offer."' = No changes or healthcare accounts that would not cover a fraction of typical med ins.

'but not without a clear game plan that is fair to everyone.' = Expand Medicare to all workers and citizens. All pay, all play= fair.

'but tell me what you mean by her being a hack, at least how that would interfere with the health plan she proposes?'

Hack = she has not a single new idea. She is not an innovator not a visionary, and when confronted- see 1993 healthcare or 2003 Iraq war, she folds her tent out of political convenience. She lacks vision, courage, and cares only for power. That is a hack.

'"nonsense the R's offer."' = No changes or healthcare accounts that would not cover a fraction of typical med ins.

What do you think of Romney's plan?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health...

Or what about France?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opin...