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.

Truly inflammatory remarks include racist statements and things of that nature. The stuff you and Jim bat back and forth between each other don’t reach that level, at least not that I’ve seen. If it ever does, contact me and I’ll take a look.

Terence,
I appreciate your concern in European affairs and I offer again the pretty solid reality that State public services, including the medical staff are not on par with private practices. At least, for what concerns Italy. I do not believe the EU has implemented medical standards across the board throughout Europe. Each country continues to run independently from the Union as it pertains to their infrastructures.

“I have quite a few friends in the medical profession(s) in France, Germany, and italy and things are not that different between these countries - not quite the same, but not that different.”

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]

This discussion has reached lows I never expected. I find it more interesting to discuss this topic with people I know personally and who are intimately acquainted with the issues.

your inflammatory retorts are part and parcel of every response thrown in my direction, in this thread and elsewhere.

It’s no secret that you approach my comments with a sense of superiority. By claiming from the get-go that my beliefs or opinions are tainted by ideology or ignorance, you hope to discredit them and avoid real debate. How would you feel if others accused you of spewing DNC mantra, time and time again?

Jim S. builds a straw man:
“let me explain that Italy is in Europe, not is Europe and that generalizing from Italy to every possible variant on health care systems that have government involvement does not reflect well on whatever intelligence you are claiming to possess.”

Logical argumentation left Jim S. long time ago. He creates a non-issue on which to toggle his biases and anger. After boasting of **Europeans** systems (France and Spain) faring better than their American counterpart, Jim S. singles out Italy (another European country) for the sole purpose to impugn my ability to differentiate between the continent (Europe) and the country (Italy) and lecture me!

Reality check:

a. Jim, your straw man creation and consequent deduction defines the irrational use of your intellect.

b. The demagoguery, the absence of direct info and lack of experience you offer for your claims on foreign healthcare do not qualify as facts. Your opinions of the European model are based on the judgments of people you don’t even know.

c. Your statement that I claimed the U.S. system is perfect is another untruth. I never contended any such thing.

With regard to that hooey of the “lobotomized” comment, you made another illogical argument. There is no correlation between my healthcare experience overseas and my political beliefs, except in your head. Therefore, every time, you fall back on “RNC talking points” it screams loony.

If your mother is in Italy and she is over 63 years of age she is eligible for a government sponsored supplemental health insurance policy to protect her from that exact problem. In addition, I know of no “lowered standards” for doctors in private versus public service - can you point me to those references please - as I understand it licensing for doctors is actually standardized in the EU = government practice has stricter controls on hours worked, mandatory time off, volunteer work, etc. All people fall under the same pension system so there is no negative or positive gain there. I have quite a few friends in the medical profession(s) in France, Germany, and italy and things are not that different between these countries - not quite the same, but not that different

Finally, in one of theprevious posts a string of comments was made stating that most of the development work for medicine, medical equipment, and medical research was done in the US and the rest of the world benefited from it, and didn’t do much of it themselves because they were burdened by their own medical systems. I am mystified how such ridiculous opinions can be adhered to. That is simply not true, the list of medical discoveries and pioneering advances just n the last 10 years is far to lengthy to annotate here.

Let’s just leave it with the comment that we don’t have national medical care here in the US because the insurance companies, American Medical Association, and Bio-medical corporations don’t want us to. There’s no other reason. If you ask a conservative or a liberal or a moderate if they would like national medical care - the answer is unanimously “yes” (differences of opinion, but essentially everyone agrees) - so if all the “people” are in agreement why don’t we have it after 60 years of trying (yes 2008 is the 60th anniversary of Harry S. Truman ;obbying congress for that “right” of citizenship). Because it could take money away from the DOD, and because the lobbies are too strong.

Hmmmm…my captcha phrase for this post is health illusion.

I suggest you look at what Elisabetta wrote and I quoted. I do not in fact always use those phrases. I admit that I do use them in certain cases but I had not used them with her until her ranting attack on me because I pointed out that her arguments were straight line Republican. Using the reference to the Harry and Louise commercials was in no way meant as an insult but a point about the nature of her argument concerning lack of choice only when the government gets involved. I also asked if she could point me to any comments she made that weren’t and that I would apologize for the generalization if she could. I notice you offered absolutely no critique of her rant.

Elisabetta, the reason your comments don’t show up is they sometimes get caught in the spam filters. This is a completely automated process, so I have to then go in and check the comment moderation queue probably 20 - 30 times a day to make sure all comments that aren’t spam get through in a timely fashion. This isn’t a big deal because it doesn’t take long, but that’s the reality. Additionally, if you actually lose a comment and you don’t see it show up later, that probably has to do with something on your end. Nothing in my system automatically deletes anything and I very rarely delete real comments. I know for a fact I’ve never deleted anything of yours. Usually only truly inflammatory drive-by racist comments get axed. And nobody who comments here on a regular basis is guilty of that.

Elisabetta,

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. As I said, there is no such thing as a European health care system, there is a different one for each country. You know that you were not happy with the system in Italy. Lots of Italians apparently share your opinion. That doesn’t mean that making the claim that what you experienced applies to every European country or that the existing American system is perfect has any validity.

Like it or not every position you’ve ever written is straight line 2008 Republican talking points. If you want to get upset about it try pointing me to something where that isn’t true. I will be more than willing to apologize. But that is all I’ve seen in your posts. Then you come up with this:

Stuck your foot in your mouth again, huh, Jimmy boy?
Before accusing others of falling back on talking points, take ownership of the left-wing propaganda you submit to.

Frankly, I don’t care what doubts you have about me. Personally, I have none whatsoever about you being a left wing lunatic as exemplified by your posts that regularly and categorically berate conservatives and their ideas, at the same time pushing the left-wing madness.

Followed by:

Wasn’t you Jim that penned, “Hey Louise!!…” Not a compliment or an isolated incident. In previous discussions, you insulted my intelligence, questioned my motives and now challenged the accuracy of my statements, after discarding them, a priori, as RNC talking points.

I said “Hey, Louise!” because what was passing for an argument that you posted was the exact same one made by the insurance industry backed TV ads in the early ’90s featuring those “iconic” figures of Harry and Louise. The claim was false then and it’s false now. Many companies offer one plan and one plan only and you are limited by what they offer. In addition in a desperate bid for savings plans can change yearly or close to it and you can suddenly find your existing doctor to be out of network and medications you’ve been on for years to not be in their formulary.

At least after that I have no doubts about you. You are in fact an ideologically lobotomized follower of the Right of the lowest order who is apparently convinced that she can be the heir to such luminaries as Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter. You’d have to actually have an idea for me to berate it, wouldn’t you? In addition you’d have to have some intelligence for me to insult it. Your rant against me pretty much disproves any claims you might have in that department as does your inability to distinguish between Italy and Europe. Given the intelligence that displays let me explain that Italy is in Europe, not is Europe and that generalizing from Italy to every possible variant on health care systems that have government involvement does not reflect well on whatever intelligence you are claiming to possess. I would say that you should shove it where the sun don’t shine but I do believe that your head is already there.

1. You claim to have lived in Europe. Did you ever need health care while you were there?

Answered when I said I grew up there. Even healthy people go to the doctor now and then.

2. What country did you live in?

Italy

3. Did you have friends who had really needed health care?

Answered in the context that I have family and friends over there who use the services.

4. What was your experience, Elisabetta?

Negative. Doctors that work for the state have lower educational requirements and earn lower incomes. That translates in incompetent providers that offer substandard care. Often, people will opt to see a specialist of their choice and pay out-of-their pocket rather than the State’s doctor.
Many RXs are not covered.
Hospitals are in same category as doctors. It’s not uncommon for people to go to private clinics at their own expenses vs. using State’s hospitals.

Very irritating when comments vanish for no apparent reason

After, posting my last reply to you I thought important to point out that the questions (rhetorical) I had in the post that spurred your “suspicions” are at the center of the issues I have with Government-run health Insurance. The country is Italy.

Let me share a few recent examples.

Few weeks ago my mom needed a brace to help her with two fractured vertebraes. The choice was: to wait several months to get it “free” or go ahead and purchase it with her own money. Needless, to say, she opted for the latter.
Her primary also ordered medication (shots, pills) none of which was covered.

Although, she has “free” insurance if she uses the State’s designated doctors, she often chooses to pay for specialists (cardiologists, dentists, etc.) out of her own pocket, so that she can pick a doctor with a good reputation.

It’s also, widely known and understood that the doctors that work for the “free” insurance the State provides (through taxes) offer substandard care and are not nearly as educated and competent when compared to those not on the State’s payroll.

And if you’re in need of Hospital care whether it’s a for a pregnancy or any surgery, you better make sure you have enough money and go to a privately-owned hospital.

Incidentally, her complaints are shared by family and friends alike.

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?

So, I decided to play ball and answered, minus the specific country, your questions. Plus, I commented on your M.O. when responding to my posts (attacking me, instead of the issues). After acting like a jerk, you went for a second round of arrogance and craziness, declaring that my answer proved your point. Something was proven, albeit, not what you think.

Unlike you, I allow people to express their views without the need to offend or provoke them. Of course, don’t be shocked - when you constantly opt to degrade - that I call it like I see it.

FYI ~

I made some assertions on the Europeans healthcare that contrasted the position of those that affirm that European healthcare far exceeds the U.S. and it’s a model we should adopt. Others, besides me, disagree with your opinion. Also, I believe, among those involved in this discussion, no one but me has ever lived in Europe. You didn’t know it. However, you didn’t ask any of the others that dissented with you whether they had lived overseas or used the European Healthcare to buttress their arguments. No, again, you chose to start a foolish argument with me on that basis.

Following your arrogant demand that I prove my claims, coupled with the presumption that you “knew” I was rehashing “talking points,” I revealed that my assertions were grounded on three things:

a. Personal experience
b. First-hand knowledge of the system
c. Others’ account of their direct experience

I POSIT THAT PROOF IS REQUIRED OF YOUR CLAIMS AS THEY ARE SECOND-HAND ANECDOTES OF “SUPPOSEDLY” AMERICANS AND EUROPEAN CONTACTS THAT BOAST OF THE WONDERS OF THE EUROPEAN HEALTHCARE.

I was on a jury in a malpractice suit a few years back. After we’d all been there a week and the jury was about to go into deliberations the doctor’s insurance company settled. Too bad. On the way out we were being asked if we had come to a conclusion. I told them I considered it a shame that they’d settled and asked them to please convey to the doctor that I felt that he’d done absolutely nothing wrong and that I certainly wouldn’t have any worries about being treated by him.

Yet the total is far less than our taxes PLUS our insurance costs.

Jimmy says:
That dude got nine million dollars. I doubt that the insurance company will be fraudulently cutting off patient care in the future. Others will take note.

But don’t you want to limit lawsuits as a way to lower costs? Kind of blows your own point out of the water, huh?

Rationing measures are taken in almost specialty in Europe and it has varying effect on the wait lists. Obviously the wait lists are going to be higher for treatments in greatest demand. Of course, it will take the government a while to figure out what treatment is in highest demand, because has no money communicating the demand. It will then have to mobilize its bureacratic management.

From Von Mises, 1944 “Bureacracy”

Bureaucratic management is management bound to comply with detailed rules and regulations fixed by the authority of a superior body. The task of the bureaucrat is to perform what these rules and regulations order him to do. His discretion to act according to his own best conviction is seriously restricted by them.

So demand will not be a great issue or at least not a very efficient one.

I don’t have the solution Jim, but I can recognize what is not the answer.

Show me where an insurance company has failed because of unfair or unethical practices. To the best of my knowledge it has never happened. Your faith may require that you believe it will happen but I’d prefer some evidence. Yes, there are lots of insurance companies. And that is part of the problem, not the solution. Over 1200 different bureaucracies. 1200 different sets of paperwork for doctors to fill out. 1200 different sets of people whose job it is to see if they can come up with a way to deny claims. 1200 different companies that pay doctors on a schedule that would result in policy cancellation for any of their customers.

My reflexive dislike and mistrust is not of the free market. It has its place and its limitations. You apparently do not realize that it has limitations. My dislike is for that kind of attitude. You are the one saying that health care can be shopped for like any other commodity, not I. Because if it can’t then every word you say about how the free market can work is wrong. Without a fully informed buying populace the free market breaks down. I pointed this out in an earlier post and you completely ignored it. Do you even know what rational choice theory is? Do you understand that the reason it is largely discredited now is because some economists were bright enough to realize that irrational thought and emotions have their place in decision making? And what would encourage more emotional decision making than health care? Yet some classical economists refuse to abandon the old belief that everything can be determined by everyone with simple examination of the facts and that it is available for everything in our economic life. You also completely ignored the question of jargon, complicated methods of calculating who owes what, summary decisions on the part of the insurance companies and everything else in the real world. Then you say that some need more regulation and others less. Do I really have to remind you that a major part of your initial post was on how the insurance companies need to be deregulated? You led off with “deregulated/re-regulated” but then never, ever mentioned any regulation, only deregulation. That’s right. We need the health care equivalents of securitized mortgage funds, sub-prime mortgages, Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia Cable, toys with lead paint and the recent massive beef recall. What are those things? The results of combinations of deregulation and when you couldn’t deregulate you just don’t give the responsible agencies the resources to enforce those nasty, evil government regulations. There are no deep and complex layers in the modern free market system. It consists solely of grabbing for the most you can get by hook or by crook and knowing that if you get caught the crime is so confusing that you might not even get prosecuted much less convicted. And then you’re just as likely to get a slap on the wrist as any real punishment. If you doubt that consider that the list above is a very partial one.

In addition you keep going on and on about the innovative solutions that the insurance companies will come up with. Where are they? How many years have we known that the system has had deep problems? Yet the only innovation that the insurance companies have shown is in protecting their bottom line while jacking up fees at consistent double digit rates. Years ago I was paying for my own insurance and I noticed something very telling. Every year my insurance went up at anywhere from 30 to 50% faster than the rate of inflation for actual medical costs. Where are these giants of innovation for the disabled? Where is their voice pointing out how they will help those with pre-existing conditions? Those innovations do not exist. The insurance industry has lobbyists, not researchers. They have accountants, not counselors. The primary if not only role that doctors and nurses who work for them have is to figure out how to turn down claims. Quit trying to give them characteristics they do not have. They are creatures of fiduciary duty to the stockholders, not compassion. The two are mutually exclusive.

Then you give me this really easy target:

But I have yet to see any industry that involves individuals making private choices that has been improved by the government taking over the system.

Please. Where in modern America have you had the opportunity to see first hand an industry being taken over by the government? Heck, you couldn’t find an example in American history. You read accounts about what happens in other countries to oil companies or utility companies. Guess what? People making choices have almost nothing to do with those industries, especially in developing countries. But that’s the least of why it’s an easy target. As I wrote and you ignored completely I propose a system like that in the European countries where there is a government system that does what the private companies refuse to do. Provide a useful health care system for those that can’t pay enough to produce profits that will make big companies happy. It’s available to everyone regardless of income with those who can afford to pay more doing so. But anyone who wants to use the private system for whatever reason are perfectly free to do so.

Then we get to your last statement. I will really try to refrain from name-calling but it really pisses me off.

I don’t see why you wholesale reject the idea of a free market solution. If we don’t have all ideas on the table we’re sure to come up with an inferior system.

HOW DARE YOU??? You are the one who refuses absolutely to put all ideas on the table. You are the one who says absolutely and unequivocally that the only acceptable approach is a “market based solution”. You are the one who denies any government role in the system. And then you have the unmitigated gall to say that I am the one who refuses to consider all options and therefore would cause an inferior system. Got news for you, buddy. We already have the inferior system based on most outcome metrics. Your innovative suggestion is more of the same, forever and ever, amen. Praise the One True God, Free Market!

I also have an intimate knowledge of how doctors offices work and how they negotiate with insurance companies. I have much contempt for a lot of those companies but at least there are a lot of them. Those being the most unfair/ineffective eventually go away. If the government controled it all, then the low payments they enforce and the problems they create will have no remedy save passing more laws which, without the input of the free market, will likely create more problems than solve.

You seem to have a reflexive dislike and mistrust of the free market. Why? To even claim that the free market works the same way for a TV as for healthcare is to ignore the deep and complex economic layers involved in the free market. Different industries react differently to free market principles. Some require more monitering and regulation, some require almost none. But I have yet to see any industry that involves individuals making private choices that has been improved by the government taking over the system.

I don’t see why you wholesale reject the idea of a free market solution. If we don’t have all ideas on the table we’re sure to come up with an inferior system.