Good little neocon, just keep destroying America, one borrowed billion at a time as long as you don’t have to pay any taxes, right? Don’t forget to always vote for the lying scum that spend more and grow the size of government more than anyone in history too, OK? See, anyone with half a brain would have figured out that they were being lied too by the filthy thieving neocon scum by now, but not you! You go girl!

Bye bye.

I see you are still clueless about your own words and unable to comprehend others’.

Repeatedly, you have demonstrated an inability to express a cogent point or answer questions brought on by your half-witted statements. When I called you on them, the response was more insensate insults and more diversions.
Enough time wasted.

If you are still reading, I know we agree on one thing: the system is not working as is. I think my argument has been misconstrued as a do-nothing argument, which it isn’t. We just have very different ideas on how to approach this. Right now, I think the free market is being choked by regulations (many of which the insurers have pushed through to benefit themselves). My political philosohphy leads me to always want to try private solutions before imposing big government. I think there can be much good from stripping away the regulatory shackles and letting the free market breathe. Mind you, I’m talking about the regulations that stop people from obtaining quality, affordable insurance, not regulations that stop the insurers from abusing the system.

My concern with your position is that it could result in throwing the baby out with the bath water. I do not believe the free market is 100% effective all the time but I do believe there are good solutions there. Ones that have not been tried. And ones that would ultimately result in a a higher quality system for all Americans.

But do note, I do not hold my political principles to be as immutable as my moral principles. Political principles are just well-considered opinions relying on facts and experience. If facts or experience change, those principles should change. And there is no shame in compromise as long as the ultimate goal is the same. If you and I were tasked with coming up with a solution all by ourselves, we’d find a way. This debate got overly heated and hurt our ability to have a real conversation. I’m not a yeller. I hope I can keep from angering you next time out.

Moreover, did you even read the article you linked to or did you pick a title you thought propped your contention, not sure which, without knowing the substance of it?

I have been hard pressed to find anything even remotely bolstering any idea of yours. Missed the mark, again.

A sample of excerpts from the article

July 9, 2001
PERSPECTIVES ON THE EUROPEAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS: SOME LESSONS FOR AMERICA
by Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., Philippe Manière, David G. Green, Ph.D., Paul Belien, Johan Hjertqvist, and Friedrich Breyer, Ph.D.
Heritage Lecture #711

Some Surprises
Americans will probably be surprised to learn from the remarks that follow that Switzerland’s health care system relies almost entirely on a system of private insurance. They might be surprised to learn that there is a growing reliance on the private sector in the financing and delivery of health care in Europe, particularly in the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden. Even the Labor government in Britain has entered into an agreement with representatives of the private health care industry to improve health care delivery in certain vital areas.
Reforms in Europe, where they are diligently pursued, have taken on a certain urgency. A major factor affecting recent health care policy making in Europe, including privatization efforts, is the rapid aging of the European population. Continental Europe is comprised largely of countries that have rapidly aging populations. Although life expectancy has increased, fertility rates have decreased, and much of Europe faces demographic stagnation. This unfavorable ratio of old to young persons is far worse in major European nations than in either Canada or the United States.
The unfavorable shift in the demographic balance is particularly rapid in France and Germany, and will impose tremendous financial pressures on their existing health care-social security arrangements. America’s Medicare and Social Security reformers should take note.

Some Lessons
For Members of Congress and state legislators, there are some valuable lessons from the European experience that should be less surprising.

* If you insist on government management of the health care system, do not expect freedom from waste, inefficiency, or inequity in the delivery of care (look at France).

* If you want to promise citizens a national or state program of universal insurance coverage, don’t expect that you will be able to deliver universal access to high-quality health care. You won’t and you can’t (look at Britain).

* If you want to fix prices for medical services, prescription drugs, or other medical devices, don’t expect demand for these goods and services to be met or investment in research and development to continue apace. It won’t (look anywhere).

* If you insist, with a straight face, that in a government-run health care system, all of your fellow citizens will be treated equally–regardless of their class, station in life, or disease condition–you are not merely enthusiastic or well intentioned. You are lying.

Health care policy is complex and difficult. In the reform of America’s public health programs, and in creating new opportunities for individuals and families in the private markets, policymakers at the state and federal levels should learn as much as they can about what works and what doesn’t in every health care system. In that way, they can better determine what should and should not be done here. The experts assembled by the Centre for the New Europe who came here to speak are an excellent resource.

Also…

France’s health care system is typical of those of most European countries: It is a state-oriented system that operates with little concern for the economic dynamic of supply and demand or efficient management. As the client base of the system increases, without innovative policies to augment finances, curtail waste, and more effectively target services, a crisis is increasingly more imminent.

And…
Problems in France’s System
France’s health care system is the epitome of mismanagement, riddled with opportunism. In France, about half of all the hospitals (and all the largest ones) are state-owned. They are run on the assumption that people will not pay. With high rates of refunds to patients, the system provides virtually free care, attracting clients from beyond the country’s borders. It has been said that people from developing nations take cabs directly from the Charles de Gaulle airport to hospitals in Paris and that they can expect that even their taxi fare will be taken care of through French largesse.

In toto, this series of lectures does more to buttress the argument that Europeans healthcare is riddled with problems – that we should learn from, not imitate – and attest to the need of European countries to mend their systems, rather than anything you have implied.

Here’s an article from the Heritage foundation that has some good ideas and points. How could a “liberal” like me point to the Heitage foundation? Oh, because I’m not a liberal, I was simply making a logical point and that made a partisan brainwashed hack such as you instantly howl “liberal” in order to dismiss it without thinking. http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL711.cfm

Or perhaps doctors know something about health care, of course they couldn’t possibly know as much as you, but then they are all “liberals” too, right?
http://www.pnhp.org

You truly embody all that is wrong with American politics. Absolutely no ability to think outside your tiny little brainwashed partisan hack world. Just howl “liberal” at everyone who doesn’t march in lock step. Pathetic.

For starters, your premise, ‘Americans pay more in taxes and health insurance than Europeans pay for taxes’ is vague, unproven and can easily be dismissed as an apples to oranges argument. Therefore, before you can compare A to B you must elucidate on the specifics.

Further, the crux of my last post was not whether people agree with you, or to correct misspells (you do know the difference between a typo and misspelling a word, don’t you?). Additionally, the ‘sanity’ of those you think agree with you is a matter of opinion, namely yours.

The hub of my observations was the uncanny resemblance in mannerisms between you and ‘David.’

As to the multiple comments it happens to others, as well. When replies don’t post, we retry, then, poof, all at once!

Finally, it’s incredibly asinine that you accuse me of “dodging” answers. For Pete’s sake, what do you think I did in reply dated March 4 2008 at 1:36 pm?

I’m not sure why you would be surprised that more than one person here would find you “ridicules”. It seems to me most all of the sane posters here would agree with that description.

In this thread
djthedj Says:
March 4th, 2008 at 9:15 am
…your RIDICULES claims.

In another one http://donklephant.com/2008/01/24/stimulus-more-like-wealth-redistribution/#comment-389674
David Says:
February 4th, 2008 at 5:51 am
…Whatever. I’ll await your RIDICULES reply.

Let’s suppose for the sake of discussion that I misunderstood what you wrote. You then, had the opportunity to clarify your opinions.
I expressed what I thought you said and asked a question. That’s feedback.
Conversely, you reacted with irrational, poppycock accusations. That is negative feedback.
If your opinions or the expression of those opinions come across muddled, then by all means, set the record straight, calmly and reasonably. Berating the questioner and alleging preposterous things creates unnecessary distraction from the topic.

Ironically, you twisted my words, took offense, devised my intention (wrongly), and lashed back with highfalutin hogwash.

Here’s to one more opportunity to clear up your statement, b/c it remains a mystery.

Statement #1 (by me):
All Europeans may ‘enjoy’ health insurance, but they also carry some of the highest tax rates in the world.”

Statement #2 (by you):
“Yet the total is far less than our taxes PLUS our insurance costs.”

I was talking about European having health insurance, plus HIGH taxes. You declare that the “total” is far less than “our taxes and health insurance.”

What comprises that TOTAL that you use to compare to the sum of “our taxes plus our insurance” ?? Please, explain yourself.

Let’s suppose for the sake of discussion that I misunderstood what you wrote. You then, had the opportunity to clarify your opinions.
I expressed what I thought you said and asked a question. That’s feedback.
Conversely, you reacted with irrational, poppycock accusations. That is negative feedback.
If your opinions or the expression of those opinions come across muddled, then by all means, set the record straight, calmly and reasonably. Berating the questioner and alleging preposterous things creates unnecessary distraction from the topic.

Ironically, you twisted my words, took offense, devised my intention (wrongly), and lashed back with highfalutin hogwash.

Here’s to one more opportunity to clear up your statement, b/c it remains a mystery.

Simple logic.

Statement #1 (by me):
All Europeans may ‘enjoy’ health insurance, but they also carry some of the highest tax rates in the world.”

Statement #2 (by you):
“Yet the total is far less than our taxes PLUS our insurance costs.”

I was talking about European having health insurance, plus HIGH taxes. You declare that the “total” is far less than “our taxes and health insurance.”

What comprises that TOTAL that you use to compare to the sum of “our taxes plus our insurance” ?? Please, explain yourself.

.

Let’s suppose for the sake of discussion that I misunderstood what you wrote. You then, had the opportunity to clarify your opinions.
I expressed what I thought you said and asked a question. That’s feedback.
Conversely, you reacted with irrational, poppycock accusations. That is negative feedback.
If your opinions or the expression of those opinions come across muddled, then by all means, set the record straight, calmly and reasonably. Berating the questioner and alleging preposterous things creates unnecessary distraction from the topic.

Ironically, you twisted my words, took offense, devised my intention (wrongly), and lashed back with highfalutin hogwash.

Here’s to one more opportunity to clear up your statement, b/c it remains a mystery.

Statement #1 (by me):
All Europeans may ‘enjoy’ health insurance, but they also carry some of the highest tax rates in the world.”

Statement #2 (by you):
“Yet the total is far less than our taxes PLUS our insurance costs.”

I was talking about European having health insurance, plus HIGH taxes. You declare that the “total” is far less than “our taxes and health insurance.”

What comprises that TOTAL that you use to compare to the sum of “our taxes plus our insurance” ?? Please, explain yourself.

.

DJtheDJ responds: “Yet the total is far less than our taxes PLUS our insurance costs.”

You agree with the premise that Europeans have some of the highest tax rates, then go on to affirm their Tax rate + their insurance costs is less than our taxes? Got some hard facts to bolster that argument?

Can you read? OUR TAXES PLUS OUR INSURANCE RATES is what I said so you just decided to insert “their” into it, huh? I know that doesn’t fit into your narrow little world but that doesn’t mean you just get to change my words to fit your idiotic ideas. You really aren’t worth talking to. You embody everything that is wrong with American politics today, especially the lunatic brainwashed right wing. Twist everyone’s words, use nutty strawman arguements and false premise anecdotal evidence to back up your ridicules claims. Bye now.

Alan,

If you are still reading this I look forward to further reasonable discussions concerning this issue with you in the future. If in this morass of text you can find where I discuss my actual opinions on where we ought to go you would find that I do not say that we should do anything that would eliminated private insurance but in fact come up with a system that rather than subsidizing them with government funds there should be a government agency that would take care of what private insurance has shown they have no interest in doing.

I did not extoll the virtues of “European” health care systems because I know that there is no such thing as one European system, however much they may share some characteristics. I love how she takes a comment from TerenceC out of context to support her views when in fact the overall post was criticizing her claims.

She calls me lots of names because I say that her posts are just RNC talking points, do not contain anything that indicate actual original though or research, etc. I respond that if she would show me where she made posts that did not reflect those criticisms I would apologize and that still stands. She just called me more names.

And then in the post she addresses to TerenceC she says this:

You may want take that up with Mr. “know it all” as that appears to contrast with his assertion: “So, you have experience of one European country. Interestingly enough your experience is of the EUROPEAN COUNTRY THAT HAS THE LOWEST LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THEIR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM OF ANY EUROPEAN COUNTRY INCLUDING GREAT BRITAIN.” [Caps mine]

If in fact she had really read my post she might have noticed that I was not making some kind of blanket assertion but had done some actual research and linked to this paper that studied the perception of the Italian public versus W.H.O. study results of their health care system. Experience is often equivalent to anecdotes, which contribute to but are not the begin all and end all of examining a system, any system.

And of course her ideology affects her views of health care policy. Everyones ideology affects their views on subjects like that. The question is simply how much.

I find it a little disturbing that you apparently assume that I am the one who would go that low. Might I suggest you re-read this thread and look at who was the first one to start the real ranting and name calling?

I don’t demonize the free market I just admit that it isn’t infallible and that it doesn’t work everywhere and in every field of human endeavor. Why do you fail to acknowledge that? Why do you think it works everywhere? Or do you? Health care is one of those places, IMO. If the free market works everywhere why do we have millions uninsured and even more underinsured? Why do the insurance companies fight so hard against including mental health care or dental care, both of which are vital to overall health? Did you see Sixty Minutes last night by any chance? A charity that at first envisioned themselves as being needed purely to provide health care in the Third World has started operating in the United States. They bring in volunteer doctors of every specialty including dentistry and vision, set up in a large public facility and provide treatment to whoever comes in over the weekend. People start lining up the night before. But hundreds leave without being treated because there just isn’t enough time. Private charities just don’t have enough resources. The free market has done nothing to change that. Those who do defend it at all costs (I am not including you in this.) and do not want government involvement refuse to acknowledge just how deep the problem is.

And please note that I didn’t claim that they didn’t innovate, it was just that the only goal of their innovations was to help their bottom line, not necessarily the patients. Patients and their health is not the concern of a publicly held company, the stockholders are. In some areas this is a good thing. In health care it’s doubtful that it is a good thing.

I was away this weekend so I couldn’t respond to your last comment directed towards me. This discussion has reached the breaking point so I won’t weigh it down with too many more words. I’ll only say I’m more than willing to consider government activity in health care. I’m not dramatically against mandated coverage (MA system is having problems but I’d consider it as part of a solution). I’m not against subsidies per se, even those unconnected to tax rebates. I’m not even against expanding medicaid so that others can buy into it. The only thing I’m 100% against is any plan that doesn’t allow the better aspects of the free market to keep going (notably medical technology/pharmacuetical innovation and incentives for doctors to be well trained and provide top notch care).

You’ve done an excellent job of accusing me of holding all kinds of positions I don’t hold and of making me sound downright ignorant. Just because I defend the free market when you prefer to demonize it doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to consider hybrid solutions. This is an evolving debate. You say the insurance comapnies haven’t innovated, but they actually have. HMOs were a disaster but they were an innovation. PPOs have worked better. Both were developed within the last 20 years — that’s not that long of a time for an issue this big.

I’m sorry that I angered you — that’s the last reaction I want to create as it kills any chance we’ll ever stop talking at and start talking to each other.