Comments on: Bachmann Picks Bush Over Sick Kids

By: the lonely ranger

the lonely ranger — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:01:53 +0000

I see that this spirited debate has grown as cold as the heart of RabidRepublican and some of his fellow “realists” on the right. KH, you are wrong about the difference between church and state when you say that paying taxes is not a matter of personal choice. Taxes are the dues we pay to belong in one of the most exclusive clubs on the planet: being a citizen in the USA. If it is too much of a burden, then move. It is instructive that so often those on the right always seem to introduce new subjects or contentions tangential to the subject at hand. Eva correctly refers to “straw man” arguments. Although this issue, (SCHIP and health care in the US) has many moral or value related components, I wish that those on the right would put on their pragmatic, bottom-line, business hats and evaluate the record. What are the facts?
Perhaps I can be forgiven for using a sports analogy. Let’s say you are the owner of a professional sports franchise. There are 28 teams in the league. Your team operates under the same system for 25 years. You pay 50% more for your team’s operating costs than any other team. The twenty seven other teams all use a newer system. For more than 25 years your team finishes at the bottom of the league. Do you keep the old system? OR Do you adopt the new one and try and tailor it to your needs and strengths? What would Steinbrenner do? This hypothetical situation accurately describes the USA’s health delivery system when compared to other nation’s systems. No amount of obfuscation, rationalization, or sticking your head in the sand will change these results. Explain to me why coming in last when judging overall quality is a good thing? Wake up . We are paying for a Rolls Royce and getting a Yugo. By the way, Has anyone seen Tonto?

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:10:37 +0000

I brought up religion only to point out the hypocrisy, not as justification for policy. The Justification for the policy is that children, through no fault of their own, are living in families without health insurance because WE as a society say that they don’t matter as much as others. We would rather that thousands of families go bankrupt than take a few dollars from every taxpayer to help them. If that’s what you believe, fine, I think it’s better to help them and keep kids healthy.

By: Kerosene Hat

Kerosene Hat — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:36:15 +0000

The religious right are hypocrites, I agree. But not because they are Republicans, because they are “religious”. Supporting a tax rate of 40% instead of 25%, or whatever the differences between Republicn and Democrats might be today, is a meaningless difference compared to the teachings in the Bible. Well I guess it depends on which parts you decide to read. And remember, you brought up your faith as a justification for a political policy, not me. The difference between the church and state in this country is you give to the church voluntarily, the money we give to the state is not a personal choice. Those of us against the war are forced to support it every day we go to work and pay taxes, regardless of what else we do. We are to some degree complicit for the war whether we like it or not.

By: rick

rick — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:30:27 +0000

I don’t recall saying that I support the corruption that is ongoing in the Catholic church. My personal faith is none of your business, but I like to think of myself as a recovering Catholic. My post was in fact to point out the hypocrisy of the the religious right in their opposition to helping the poor and down trodden which goes directly against the teachings of the person that they call their Lord and Savior. I see that KH has some issues with the Holy See, wow. I was trying to point out I’ve done some Bible studies along the way.

I pay my taxes,taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society. I do what I can to end the war, I vote, I work on campaigns, I donate money to worthy causes and candidates, I try to educate people as to the criminal corruption that is the Bush administration.

By: Kerosene Hat

Kerosene Hat — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:54:22 +0000

Rick,

You, must, be, joking, right? You think that volunteering for and tithing to the holy roman pedophilia defense fund is your basis for judging others on their treatment of children? How many million have they had to pay out to date? Maybe they should have bee paying for for the health insurance for those kids instead of hiding the fact that their priest had been having sex with them. On the other hand the churches obvious progressive grasp of gender and racial issues probably makes up for their decades of systematic hild abuse.

At least those of us U.S. citizens that are against the immoral war in Iraq aren’t paying taxes (therefore supporting the war) voluntarily. Or are you?

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:24:43 +0000

Veto upheld, hope you’re happy. You deal in death and misery, I got mine, fuck everyone else. Nice philosophy.

Having been raised Lutheran and converted to Catholic as an adult I seem to recall some stuff about “Love thy neighbor as thyself”. How much self-loathing must you have to deny children health insurance?
And also, “what you do unto the least of these, so do you do unto me”.
Maybe Bush and his minions, Michelle and John, should really ask themselves,What Would Jesus Do?”. I pretty certain by my reading of the New Testament that it wouldn’t be denying hundreds of thousands of children medical insurance.

By: Eva

Eva — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:57:11 +0000

Okay, but again we’re not proposing socialized medicine. You are arguing against straw men. This is what the current administration does — they distract and confound. We’re trying to cover a few more sick kids that can’t afford health insurance. And let’s say the worst is true and a few families take advantage of it — I think Richard can explicate why this won’t happen, but let’s say it’s true. Well, what if this saved one kid’s life. Just one, who had access to treatment the family couldn’t afford otherwise. And it will save more than that, but let’s say just one. Isn’t it worth it?

What if it were your kid?

By: RabidRepublican

RabidRepublican — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:02:35 +0000

“Just imagine what socialized medicine could do for those whiny cancer patients that are always clogging the waiting rooms!”

I couldn’t agree with Swiftee more - if they have to wait long enough, they’ll be out of the system completely and we won’t have to listen to the whining anymore.

By: DantheMan

DantheMan — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 03:01:34 +0000

OK. You’ve lost me. A link to Dennis the Menace? Now I gotta tune out — this can’t be productive any longer.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:52:34 +0000

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-healthy-nation/

This is the only program I’ve seen from any presdential candidate that begins to solve the problem.

By: Eva

Eva — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:41:24 +0000

I’m not sure my tax rates are going to be any higher than the thousands of dollars my family pays for health insurance.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:35:14 +0000

Imagine, instead, paying much higher tax rates in return for a State-Run Health System that is forced upon you in a one-size-fits-all fashion.

Call the insurance premium you and your employer are paying a tax and substitute “State Run” for insurance company and you’ve got the present system.

By: DantheMan

DantheMan — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:24:20 +0000

“Imagine not paying your money to an insurance company. Imagine your employer not having to absorb the cost of maintaining a competitive medical coverage plan. ”

Imagine, instead, paying much higher tax rates in return for a State-Run Health System that is forced upon you in a one-size-fits-all fashion.

Get the employers out of this, and it will work.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:50:32 +0000

The Heritage Foundation’s Stu Butler, one of the clearest thinkers on this issue IMO, has a plan that would allow every last American citizen to receive a tax credit or voucher up to the equivalent of the most bare-bones HMO plan out there. The most bare-bones plan would still provide better access than most government-run healthcare systems, and would cost the poorest in our nation nothing.

Where do the savings come from in such a system. With HMO’s and Insurance companies getting government subsidies for offering the worst coverage possible, you think they’re going to lower their prices? None of the problems with the current system would be addressed with the plan outlined in the above. Imagine not paying your money to an insurance company. Imagine your employer not having to absorb the cost of maintaining a competitive medical coverage plan. Private ownership of medical practices and hospitals would still be in place as well as private insurance plans for those that wish to spend additional monies.

By: DantheMan

DantheMan — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:22:21 +0000

I’m all for Universal Healthcare. Universal Healthcare and Single-Payer Healthcare are very different things. I want everyone to have coverage; I just don’t think the Government bureaucracy is the first place we need to go running to in order to operate the system.

Taxing the middle class to pay for the benefits of the poor — isn’t that the wealth redistribution that y’all are looking for? And we’re willing to do this one immediately.

By: Swiftee

Swiftee — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:08:42 +0000

From “USA Today” today regarding SCHIP:

By: Swiftee

Swiftee — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:02:06 +0000

“Blogger, Chris, and Dan the Man are either blinded by ideology or willfully ignorant of the salient facts.”

“We are number one however in percent of GNP spent. In other words we arguably spend more and get less than every other western industrialized nation in the world.”

Er, did you take a moment to read the news from England and Canada?

Please, by all means do explain how you can get less than *nothing*…we’re all ears.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:56:00 +0000

An interesting take on Michele Bachmann’s BUSY life and work ethic in WSashington. No wonder she has NO TIME to be in the 6th CD!!!

http://buildourparty.blogspot.com/2007/10/bachmann-and-hard-work.html There is some comparrisons between hers and Tim Walz’s work schedules. Not to mention their differences in their attitudes towards mainstream media.

By: the lonely ranger

the lonely ranger — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:49:00 +0000

What an interesting discussion. Amongst others, Randy, Rick, Richard, and Eva are not only rational but factual. Blogger, Chris, and Dan the Man are either blinded by ideology or willfully ignorant of the salient facts. This is both a practical and a moral issue.
First the practical, (rational) considerations: The most unbiased and comprehensive study of health care that I have seen can be found at the W.H.O., (World Health Organization)site. They study and rate health delivery systems in a scientific manner, without the blinders of ideology. The U.S. has ranked in the middle to high 20’s for decades. We are number one however in percent of GNP spent. In other words we arguably spend more and get less than every other western industrialized nation in the world. Last time I looked we ranked 27th in overall quality of health care delivered, with more tan 47 million uninsured and spent over 16% of GNP doing so. The best system in the world covers all it’s citizens and spent around 10% of their GNP. The one thing that every country ahead of us has in common is that they have one form or another of universal/single payer. I have had first hand experience with the health care system ranked as best. It is impressive, cutting edge, and their hospital food is much better too! OK all you right-wing ideologues, take a Valium, breath deep…that’s right it is France.
One is able to chose their doctor, their clinic and their treatment for the most part, no less so than here. Universal/Single payer needn’t necessarily mean socialized medicine. Single payer is much more efficient and less costly, period.
Universal brings in the moral component. The fact that the richest country on the planet allows more than 47 million to go uninsured, of which almost 10 million are children is a disgrace. Universal access to health care is a moral imperative. Rather than being dependent on employment it should be a birthright. Only the stubborn, stupid, or heartless would argue for “market forces” over doing what is needed when people’s lives are at stake.
Finally, I await with great anticipation to see how El Tinklenberg finds a way to be both for and against this issue. With all the fences he straddles, his wide stance could get him into trouble in public restrooms.

By: Blogger

Blogger — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:30:42 +0000

There are many cases cited by the Fraser Group that prove from the time a cancer is first suspected until a test can take place to locate and identify it (often 5-7 weeks), the cancer is able to spread beyond a point of treament. What I doubt it is some sinister plot to let people die, I don’t think anyone in America would be OK with that.

As for Tanuki’s point on quality, he has a good point. There has been no dismantling of the Canadian system. What has happened, however, is the rise of a service-and-quality-based black market. The black market for healthcare in Canada is so prevalent that the founder of one of the black market providers was recently elected President of the Canadian Medical Assocaition.

So you could say that Canada has a single-payer system that is now morphing into a partial market-drive system, and the US began with an employer-based system that is now morphing into a largely Government (50%) system.