« The Why Tuesday campaign | Main | Bush suggests tax cuts increased revenue... again! »

August 06, 2005

Comments

It is always worth pointing out when a member of congress announces he or she has been in office too long. Pete Stark, by demonstrating his bizarre lack of knowledge regarding health care, is simply finding a self humiliating way of asking the voters to replace him.
They should listen and oblige his request.

Hmmm. Is it any coincidence that we have the best and most advanced medical care in the world? Seen anyone denied treatment lately, including illegals? Is it possible that they are wrong, and that we might be onto something, such as capitalism? Just consider it - the entire world relies on American medical leadership and innovation.

"I think it's a scandal that we don't have universal health insurance in this country"

maybe yes, maybe no- what I'm curious about is where are the Americans who are denied medical care- is there a significant number?

I think this post as well as the Congressman fails to make the distinction between healthcare and health insurance.

Brendan--you wrote: ...It is true that the US stands out among industrialized countries in not having universal health care...

We do not have universal health insurance, but we provide billions of dollars of healthcare every year to people who are not insured and cannot, or will not, pay for it.

From the ILO: A big challenge for social protection is providing access to adequate care.

To me the thought behind this statement is that people are domesticated animals, who have to be "provided" with adequate care. Second, who doesn't have access to healthcare in America? I'd like to know.

More from the ILO: People in industrialized countries enjoy almost universal access to third-party financed health care.

Oh yeah, there's a rock-candy mountain out there called "Third-Party", which out of the goods of it's sugary heart finances health care. First, they tax you to death, then they take the credit for "providing" you with healthcare. These are stories for children.

To point out the obvious -- yes, as Kurt Brouwer points out above, people in this country can get access to emergency rooms even without insurance. But that's a poor substitute for real health care. And, in any case, it has little bearing on the accuracy of Stark's claim, which clearly refers to universal health care in the sense of everyone having health insurance.

I am 74, and I cannot recall a time when health care was not available to all. When everyone has insurance, that just means 25% off the top of health care spending. When universal health insurance means boob jobs and sex change operations for anyone, and heart lung transplants for death row inmates, fagidit.

As usual,being a democrat,Stark is wrong.
This is the ONLY country that virtually guarantees universal health coverage,not as a privilege,but as a right.
A right,I might add,that like separation of church and state,right to privacy and homosexuality,does NOT appear anywhere in the Constitution.
And exactly where in the Constitution does say that government must support the deadbeats and slackers that abound in this country?
I don't think that "provide for the common welfare" was intended to be a massive handout like everyone sseems to think.
Besides,anyone who wants health coverage can get it the old fashioned way.
They can work and earn it.

We have universal healthcare: it's called "emergency rooms". No one in this country is denied healthcare. Laws force ERs to treat, regardless of ability to pay. And they are utilized quite heavily by the homeless, the uninsured, and many others who could easily wait and go to a doctor's office the next day--or even week.

Universal health care would stifle innovation and choke the life out of our great health care system. Managed economies fail - period.

It's nice to see common sense in the comments section. Health care is a fixed resource. You cannot set up a system which tries to make health care unlimited. Like it has been said above, no one is denied health care here in America. Anyone can go to the emergency room. Dems and some RINOs need to stop trying to destroy all innovation in our health care system.

>And they are utilized quite heavily by the homeless, the uninsured, and many others who could easily wait and go to a doctor's office the next day--or even week.

They'd make an appointment and go, if they could afford it. But the point is, they can't.

To all the other posters who are suggesting that guaranteed emergency-room treatment is some kind of substitute for universal health care, I have a few questions: Do YOU rely on the ER for all your medical needs? Why or why not? Do you think it's an cost-efficient way of providing medical care? Do you feel that people who can't afford health insurance should not be allowed access to medical care?

I'm not sure what all you guys are crying about - I'm stuck with Mr. Stark as my representative. Ain't I lucky?? ;-)

I will say that I got a tour of capital hill for my family from his office a couple weeks ago, and that was very nice. However, that is the ONLY useful thing I think Mr. Stark has done from me since I've lived in his district (20 years or so now..)

What good will from universal health anything if we continue to drive qualified doctors, nurses and hospitals out by compensating them on the cheap. If we bring socialized medicine into our system only uber wealthy socialists will be rich enough to afford quality care, everyone else will suffer in medical poverty.

Ever consider the possibility that socialize medical care is the reason why we have soaring health care costs?

That said, why not encourage the unwashed masses to stop spending hard earned dollars on say endless entertainment and instead spend their own money on their own health insurance.

The entertainment industry, for example, produces in all practical terms what can be considered a worthless product, did not gain so much wealth by simple osmosis.

For example, why not encourage the entertainment industry to provide free entertainment so that the unwashed masses can afford to pay for their own necessary health care.

We are willing to allow celebrities, directors, producers, musicians, etc., the opportunity to earn millions for their basically worthless product yet, for some unknown reason we demand doctors, nurse and hospitals not be properly compensated for their vital and necessary product.

We demand the medical industry to work for nothing in order to provide quality care for everyone. This concept is not cost effective at all.

Where in article 1 section 8 of the Constitution does it authorize Congress to spend money on health care?

May the Lord protect you if we ever do receive "national health-care." It can take up to a year and a half to have surgery for a fractured hip in Canada. They do not have "cutting edge" neurologists in Britain. In fact, recently when a friend had a stroke in Britain, her temporary doctor there was calling her family doctor in the states for assistance. They did not even have the ability to treat her within 3 hours as we do here in the states to minimize the effects of the stroke. In England and Canada if you have the money, you can go where the "good" care is. And if you have no money you get it where it's free. It's always interesting to me that we get what we pay for. I left medicine after 30 years, given the way the profession was changing.

The comments to this entry are closed.