Comments on: The Federal Health Care Muggers

By: melvin polatnick

melvin polatnick — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:16:50 +0000

Sharing the American pie is the birthright of its people. National health care is a piece of that pie. Its constitutionality is irrelevant. The populations of Western nations like England and France get along just fine without depending upon any document like the US constitution. Their governments just try to do whats right for its people. It is no different in the US, our leaders just want to split the American pie in the most peaceful way. Those that rant for our government to follow the constitution are often Racists. They are only interested in the continuation of white power. But our leaders will continue sharing the American pie because it is the right way to do things. The constitution is a spiritual document written by men that wanted every American to feast on the land and party 24/7. It was their dream.

By: mags

mags — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:49:41 +0000

Sharon,
I am not really arsed what healthcare you have.I am objecting to the mis representation of the N.H.S ,of which i have worked for 25 yrs.

You recognise that a safety net for people is important,we just widen that net.
Health care is different that entitlements.It’s more like the emergency services,like fire and police.

They wouldn’t alter their action’s depending on ability to pay.

The U.S spends more money on it’s armed forces then all the western nations put together.
This is so you can be ‘safe’ and nobody has a problem with that.You want to keep Americans safe but not healthy via taxes.

We are not a stupid nation,so why would we widely support the N.H.S. We don’t claim it has no problems .

Congratulations on offering charity .We don’t want our childrens treatment dependent on a good will rich donor.
They are equal and there lives just as important.

By: Lucy H

Lucy H — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:39:59 +0000

Many thanks to Dr. Hsieh for this excellent article showing in very succinct terms the specific ways that the Democrats’ health care proposal will violate the rights of individual patients, businesses, and insurers. The case of Massachusetts offers practical lessons we would all do well to keep in mind. But most importantly, Dr. Hsieh explains how establishing a false right, health care, will end up destroying our true rights. Thanks again!

By: Sharon

Sharon — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:23:28 +0000

Mags:
I didn’t see France listed there in the top 5. I can distinguish misinformation. I am interested in facts. This is an anticipatory article of future profits and it doesn’t distinguish Americans. I am aware of the lower costs in those countries, that some Americans are choosing those options (flocking?????? where are the American numbers?), the joint replacements being done in India and the statistical outcomes of success and infection rates would be vital. More often than not, you get what you pay for. Costs in this country would be lower if the government got out of regulating health care and insurance companies, and addressed tort reform. I believe a patient seeking medical care overseas is not free to sue for malpractice in the way they do here in the US. I see that there are also a lot of “boob jobs” and cosmetic surgery being done as per your examples. Low cost for simple surgery is one thing. As a result of innovation in cardiology in this country, less cardiac bypass surgery will be needed in the future. I work in neurosurgery and oncology. I view CT scans and MRI scans sent to us of supposed total resection of brain tumors from other countries…and I am grateful for our services here in America. Other countries may offer alternative cancer care(Farrah Fawcet comes to mind as well as the young boy with lymphoma that fled briefly to avoid chemotherapy) but proven oncological treatment in the US is second to none. By the way, I feel the government interference in that young boy’s case (threatening to prosecute his mother) was unacceptable, another example of government invading private lives and choices of individuals, primarily driven by fear of costly lawsuits. In Detroit, in just the last 3 weeks, the practice I’m involved in is treating a young patient with a visa (non US citizen) from another country and we’re active through the embassy in getting his family here to assist him during this time. This happens all the time, all over the country. The assertion that people with no insurance do not get treatment in this country is NOT TRUE. We see patients with no insurance weekly for no charge in our clinic to follow up their care in the ER. Payment systems are worked out through the hospitals, physicians and charitable organizations all the time. For Americans, private free market medical and insurance options with tort reform will bring costs down and offer the best options for all.

By: jharp

jharp — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:21:42 +0000

Astounding ignorance.

The posters here obviously haven’t a clue to what socialized medicine is.

Otherwise they wouldn’t post that ObamaCare even remotely resembles it.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:09:40 +0000

The biggest problem with nationalized health care in the United States is the effect it will have on health research. We can probably ensure that every American has access to today’s average health care, but the cost will be a tremendous reduction in technological advance.

Technology advances because there’s a market for it. Under nationalized health care, what market will their be for medical advances that increase health care costs? The answer is almost certainly none.

Medical care might get cheaper, but it will definitely not get better. And forget about expensive treatments gradually becoming cheaper and then routine — the expensive treatments won’t exist unless their routine, and they can’t become routine until they exist.

By: Sharon

Sharon — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:42:45 +0000

Roxanne A, very well said. Because of the unique foresight of our founding fathers and the freedom of the individual in a free market capital society, in less than 300 years America has become the greatest, most revered, powerful and most contributing country/society in the world in such a short amount of time. Why any administration chooses to destroy this foundation of ideas is beyond comprehension.

By: mags

mags — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:20:29 +0000

Sharon,
Americans are flocking here,
http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/top-5-medical-tourism-destinations-51502.aspx

Yes some may go to the U.S for treatment,but only if they can pay,and not lose their house.
They go for boob jobs mostly. Others go for experimental treatment that isn’t licenced,it some cases the N.H.S re-inburse the costs.

Myself and i am sure others don’t care what health system you have,it’s none of my business.

The mis information of other countries health care is astounding.

By: Roxanne A.

Roxanne A. — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:14:02 +0000

Why are people who live for themselves, take responsibility for themselves, pay for their own medical care considered immoral, by the proponents of socialized medicine? Why do socialists/fascists think that for me to pay for my own medical care is immoral, but for the government to force someone else to pay for it is the height of morality? Why is using my judgment about my own healthcare, and paying for my decisions immoral; but relying on some government clerk to make decisions about my life is considered not only moral and rational- but desirable!?

Am I living under freedom or tyranny if the government can seize my money and force me, by taxation penalties, to “participate” in government run health care? (Oddly, many of the politicians who want to end freedom of economic choice in medicine see the need for freedom of choice in non-economic areas, such as abortion and end of life. Not being principled men and women, they accept this contradiction of wanting freedom regarding two concretes, but economic freedom in medicine as abhorrent, as perfectly acceptable.)

I am not my fellow citizen’s keeper, nor is my fellow citizen responsible for me. If anyone can’t afford medical care, he or she may ask for help, rely on charity or do without- including me. The number of people who are utterly helpless to support themselves and afford basic health care is miniscule, or we never would’ve made it out of the caves. In the relief efforts for the 2004 Tunisian tsunami, the single largest donor of charity money were PRIVATE donations of the US (including non profit institutions); a larger amount even than the amount donated by the US government. Charity for the truly helpless/down on their luck sick individuals in the US has never been and is not now a problem. But worry about charity being lacking is not what these proposals are about. These proposals to end freedom of choice in medicine are about denying men and women their fundamental right to live free and trade with whom they want, when they want, for medical care; and eventually in every aspect of life. That is called freedom, and there is no political freedom without economic freedom. The Obama plan is about wiping freedom out; by ending economic freedom, political freedom is curtailed. You may retain the right to “vote” for one fascist politician vs. another, but how free are you if you don’t have enough money (or political pull) to get a drug, an operation, a doctor, for yourself or your loved ones? Oh, that’s right those types of things only happen in Cuba or Russia, or somewhere else. There are no principles and reality is negotiable.

As we are forced to forgo our right to trade freely in medicine with the doctors we want, which ultimately is the right to achieve values (pursuit of happiness) and the right to live, advocates for collectivized medicine should stop hiding behind the lie of being concerned about the “poor and the old” and state openly that a safe, cozy, non-bloody (initially) slavery under the yoke of government is preferable to living free, with all the responsibilities living for oneself requires.

By: Sharon

Sharon — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:55:24 +0000

To Michael Gallagher: I believe you have a great idea, certainly the administration would have to take notice. Craig T Nelson, the actor who played the lead role in the sit com “Coach”, has also gone on record, on television, saying he is planning to withhold his taxes. He resides in California, need I say more?