Pharyngula

Posted by: ZADL | November 6, 2009 3:38 PM

It looks like you can vote as often as you want. Vote early, vote often!

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 6, 2009 3:39 PM

Do you support passage of the House health care reform bill?
Yes. 231 (46.48%)
No. 266 (53.52%)
Total Replies: 497

Posted by: Excluded Layman | November 6, 2009 3:41 PM

Public health care is to a populace as a bath is to a small child: They will hide, stall, and argue to avoid it, but once they're in you can never get them out.

Maybe the House bill needs an enticing bath toy clause?

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 6, 2009 3:44 PM

It looks like you can vote as often as you want.

You mean, if you vote again, the count increases by 5? That's because 5 other Pharyngulites have voted in the meantime. Our number is a legion of legions (give or take a few zeroes).

Do you believe the Peruvian Genome Study is worth $650,000 in stimulus funding?
Yes 83%
No 16%
Undecided 1%

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 6, 2009 3:44 PM

I agree that the poll is flawed in not having a single payer option.

Posted by: DeanFromBC | November 6, 2009 3:48 PM

As a Canadian I think your current system is a little f*cked up, but I'm not sure this is an answer. I guess politics is always going to demand compromises that yield watered down solutions.

The part that mandates Americans to buy insurance seems particularly odd. Why don't they just call it what it is, a tax on citizens paid directly to private, for-profit enterprise?

Taxes paid to government are bad enough, but when it is used as a payoff to insurance companies in exchange for preventing them from de-insuring, or refusing coverage for, sick people it gives me a weird feeling.

I'm with PZ. The poll is insufficiently nuanced. There should be an option that says "I'm all for health care reform, but this plan ain't it."

Posted by: James Sweet | November 6, 2009 3:59 PM

I dunno, you guys, the Republicans have a point on this one. After all, I would think freethinkers would support choice on healthcare options. If we give the people another choice in terms of a public option, then it's only a matter of time before we don't have any choices at all!

And besides, our healthcare system is fine the way it is. This year, my employer overhauled their health plan offerings to offer us a choice between two insurers: CIGNA or CIGNA(High deductible). With such a broad range of options, who could find anything to complain about?

Obama, stop trying to take away my right to choose (between two nearly identical options)!!!

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 6, 2009 4:15 PM

@James Sweet: Hey, you don't have to get health insurance through your employer, y'know. You can get it independently through private insurers. You can afford $250/month and a $7,500/year/person deductible, right?

Choice!

Posted by: David B | November 6, 2009 4:19 PM

I don't understand why so many Americans are happy with the health system they have.

In civilised countries, health care for the less affluent just happens, and without the Brit healthcare system, with all its faults, I'd be dead.

I went to the Dr with a coffee jar full of a mixture of piss and blood that I'd pissed out overnight. The doc said it was probably a urinary infection, gave me antibiotics, and said he'd refer me for further checks.

The pissing blood stopped, but a few weeks later I was summoned for an xray, a week or so after that I got a housecall from a surgeon, who wanted to stick a finger up my arse. He had ID, so I let him examine me.

A week or so later, I had a tumour in my bladder removed.

Without the NHS I'd have just assumed a urinary infection which the antibiotics had cleared up.

Thank Goodness (as Dennett would say) for the Brit NHS.

I wonder how many poor Americans die from that sort of thing.

David

Posted by: Daft Greg | November 6, 2009 4:33 PM

I agree, this poll needs more choices:

1. I do not support health care reform.
2. I support this bill.
3. I support health care reform, but this bill does not go far enough.
4. Gawdanggubmintsocialistsnobamayayjesus!

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 6, 2009 4:45 PM

I wonder how many poor Americans die from that sort of thing.

(non-poor) Americans don't care about the poor. "Let 'em die" is our health care policy for poor folks, and plenty of people are perfectly happy with that.

Posted by: Daft Greg | November 6, 2009 4:53 PM

The Republican health care system

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 6, 2009 5:18 PM

(non-poor) Americans don't care about the poor. "Let 'em die" is our health care policy for poor folks, and plenty of people are perfectly happy with that.

It's that fucking "American Dream" bullshit you keep filling your heads (and ours) with--it entrenches the absurd notion that there are two types of people in the world: Andrew Carnegies and lazy losers. Andrew Carnegie can afford private healthcare and lazy losers don't deserve it.

It's like the creationist's understanding of survival of the fittest writ large upon society. Actual biologists and paleontologists understand the importance of contingency in the history of life. Most also understand its importance in the history of individual people's lives.

Posted by: fauxrs | November 6, 2009 5:21 PM

Yeah what a lousy selection of options. Wher is the

"poor people should die already"
"I want the best and iwant it for free"
"just produce the birth certificate"

and other traditional republican options

Posted by: James Sweet | November 6, 2009 5:24 PM

The "pre-existing conditions" thing is, to me, the clearest argument in favor of socializing healthcare (and I say this as someone who considers myself a capitalist most of the time). If one understand the merest basics of how insurance works, it should be obvious that insurance companies would deny individual coverage to people with all manner of pre-existing conditions, if the statistics meet even a modest level of risk. In fact, given that the insurance companies are beholden to their shareholders, I might even argue that, under the laws as they stand now, it would be ethically wrong for insurance companies to offer coverage to people with even mild pre-existing conditions.

And yet, it's pretty obvious that health insurance doesn't achieve the societal goals for which it is intended if it only provides coverage to people who are in perfect health (i.e. only pays out claims to people who don't make any claims, har har har).

IMO, capitalism is a beautiful thing when regulations can be crafted to bring the profit incentive in line with what benefits the consumer. But that's an important caveat, and it's not possible to do that with every industry that exists. Insurance, and health insurance in particular, is an arena where capitalism falls hard.

Really, this should be blindingly obvious to anyone who has taken an economics class past 101. (Those who have only had Economics 101 could be forgiven for mistakenly thinking that the optimality of free market equilibrium applies equally in every industry)

Posted by: Desert Son | November 6, 2009 5:28 PM

Brownian, OM,

It's that fucking "American Dream" bullshit you keep filling your heads (and ours) with--it entrenches the absurd notion that there are two types of people in the world: Andrew Carnegies and lazy losers.

It's even more insidious, because it perpetuates the myth not only that "anyone can do the same if they just work hard enough!" but also that the Andrew Carnegies of the world "did it all by themselves!"

The U.S. is in this really strange place psychologically: at corporate meetings, sporting events, construction projects, and all kinds of other group gatherings, there's always talk of working together as a team to accomplish goals.

Then, as soon as the subject of a healthcare system predicated on helping everyone by being accessible to everyone comes up - in essence, a healthcare system that requires a nation to work together to accomplish a goal - it's Panic In The Streets! Lock Up Your Children! The Socialists Are Coming!

[New complementary close under construction],

Robert

Posted by: JasonTD | November 6, 2009 5:30 PM

I wonder how many poor Americans die from that sort of thing.

(non-poor) Americans don't care about the poor. "Let 'em die" is our health care policy for poor folks, and plenty of people are perfectly happy with that.

Actually, MAJeff, OM, our health care policy for the poor is called Medicaid. In Florida, more is spent on Medicaid than K-12 public education.

Posted by: jojame | November 6, 2009 5:43 PM

The current bill will cost $1.8 TRILLION according to the CBO and the unemployment is now at 10.2%. Is it really that smart to pass this bill?

Posted by: BBCaddict | November 6, 2009 5:47 PM

I was born in Rochester and go back just about every year - however I've been back in town very recently for both my grandfather's funeral and my father's.
I'm always rather shocked that I not only "made it out" but "made it to my people".
I'm even beginning to feel that way about the entire state of MN thanks to Bachmann - I know that there's still areas around where I went to college in Minneapolis that I could move back to but it seems that the entire state has gone far more red recently.
There were more votes for Obama in WISCONSIN fer Chtulu's sake! What's that about? What happened to the DFL?
I'm only half kidding when I say that I'm sure that Wellstone was assasinated.

Posted by: Janet Holmes | November 6, 2009 5:53 PM

I agree that keeping medical costs down is an important part of saving the US health care system, but to do that you have to take on doctors and hospitals! These are very powerful people who carry-on a lot when their incomes are threatened. When Australia first got universal health care (about 35 years ago) it was the doctors who screamed the loudest cause they could see their incomes falling. People will pay anything for health care if they have the money, so something has to put a break on doctors' demands, especially specialists treating serious diseases.

You also need the government to put a lid on the cost of drugs, otherwise the sky is the limit there too.

Good luck with it guys!

Posted by: chaos_engineer | November 6, 2009 5:57 PM

The current bill will cost $1.8 TRILLION according to the CBO and the unemployment is now at 10.2%. Is it really that smart to pass this bill?

Expanding health insurance to more people will create jobs and reduce unemployment.

That said, the smart thing to do would be to have a bill creating a single-payer insurance system and to have passed it 40 years ago. Passing this half-measure of a bill this late in the game is just plain embarrassing. About the only nice thing I can say is that it's not as hopelessly pig-ignorant as not passing it.

Posted by: JasonTD | November 6, 2009 5:58 PM

James Sweet @33,

So yeah, don't tell me individual insurance is great because people who are not likely to make any claims can save a little bit of money. It doesn't actually work like that.

Your points are well taken, but that wasn't the reason I did that little exercise with the insurance quotes. It was mostly to rebut Naked Bunny's comment about how expensive private insurance is. I wanted to illustrate that part of the problem is the fact that we don't have one health insurance market in the U.S., but 51. And each is regulated differently. That drastically reduces competition among insurance companies within each market.

I'm not sure I agree with the Republican refrain about allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, though. Maybe if there was also national regulation for health insurance that kind of staked out a middle ground, it would work. Otherwise companies would just move to whatever state had the loosest regulations. (Which is what happens with credit card companies, if I understand things correctly.) If a state wanted regulations weaker than the national ones, it could have them, but companies based there wouldn't be able to sell outside that state.

The problem of preexisting conditions is not easily solved, that's for sure. (I'm not perfectly healthy either, I should add. I probably would get turned down for those plans I found, have my current conditions excluded, or pay through the nose, as you said.) On the one hand, we don't want people that are sick to be unable to afford coverage. But on the other hand, it doesn't change the disincentive to buy insurance for the young and healthy to just go to 'guaranteed issue' in the private market. The mandate for getting insurance that is in the Democrats' plans seem to come with penalties far too weak to be effective, as far as I can tell. Especially given that guaranteed issue is likely to raise rates for everyone else.

As I said, my main problem with the Democrats is that they are playing 'hide the true costs' with their plans.

Posted by: thepugilist | November 6, 2009 6:04 PM

Wellpoint, in providing bonuses to employees for finding clients to exclude, was doing exactly what they were supposed to do...they were working to increase shareholder profits.

And wouldn't you know, Evan Bayh's wife sits on their board of directors. I guess it should be Evan Bayh (D-Wellpoint).

Posted by: amphiox | November 6, 2009 6:05 PM

System? What system? America has no healthcare system. What America has is a riot of mutually exclusive competing interests that would rather slit each other's throats than compromise on even setting parameters of debate for discussing the basic fundamental principles upon which to base a system on.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 6, 2009 6:07 PM

And also Jason, speaking of medicaid, does "working poor" ring a bell?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 6, 2009 6:42 PM

I see Jojame the bigot is back spouting more nonsense. And showing absolutely no sympathy for the 50 million or so Americans without health insurance. But then, what can one expect from a bigot?

Posted by: rawnaeris | November 6, 2009 6:48 PM

Hey folks, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that health-care bill the one that showed up here the other day saying that "Prayer" was going to be considered medicine?

I'm still in Uni, and I'm still on my dad's insurance, so this isn't something I've had a lot of exposure to. But if this is that same bill, I'd say a "No" vote is appropriate for now, so that we have a chance on voting for something that will actually improve the quality of life.

Posted by: Levi in NY | November 6, 2009 7:03 PM

Thanks to Sarah Palin and the Republican civil war, my district has a new Democrat in Congress who was sworn in today and will be voting for the health care bill. Huzzah!

Posted by: Dahan | November 6, 2009 7:26 PM

'Tis Himself @ 57,

Well, that couldn't have been said better. Thanks for saving me the time. Molly like entry.

Posted by: JasonTD | November 6, 2009 7:52 PM

If all you're doing is whining about liberals and Democrats, then you can fuck off.

So, is PZ's blog only about whining about conservatives and Republicans then?

I shouldn't need to send my inexpert ideas to the government. Legislators should be pushing experts within and without the government bureaucracy to do that. I don't know of any Medicare or Medicaid fraud personally, but then, that's not my job either. Given the information in this article, the job isn't getting done very well as it is.

I'm not just 'whining' when I complain that Democrats aren't impressing me with their plans. They set up the bills so that they can claim that it won't add to the deficit. (The big whopper being that the bills include a huge automatic reduction in payments to doctors and hospitals through Medicare in a couple of years that they've overridden again and again. Like they'd let that happen and watch doctors drop Medicare like a hot potato.) They want to pay for it with a tax penalty that will hit small businesses and/or a tax on 'cadillac' plans, all with formulas not indexed for inflation. (AMT, anyone?) The surcharge on the rich? That doesn't bother me, but most of the rest of the revenue and savings they claim against the huge costs strike me as either illusory or just bad ideas.

Why not just be honest for once and admit to the public that they want to increase coverage of the uninsured, and we will all have to pay for it, one way or another? Because that's not what Obama promised, nor is it what got him and many other Democrats riding his coattails elected. Instead, we get all of this crap about Obama not signing a bill that will add to the deficit (or at least, he'll only sign one that can be rigged to come out that way in CBO analyses).

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 6, 2009 8:18 PM

So Jason, if we are going to extend coverage to eveyone, and we will all have to shoulder the burden, will you be on board?
I think it is simply immoral to have over 40 million people uninsured. And I do think that everyone needs to contribute.
I also think that it is a pity that the conservatives have chosen to do nothing but obstruct. O think they could bring something to the the table, namely tort reform. That would help the costs too. But it won't happen.
On the other hand all they do is scare people about higher taxes. It seems according to so many on the right, the more selfish you are the better.

Posted by: DominEditrix | November 6, 2009 8:34 PM

Betsy McCaughey, she who was eviscerated by Jon Stewart, has an article in the WSJ claiming to "really" explain the health care bill. Aside from the fact that she misquotes, misinterprets and has only a glancing familiarity with the English language ["designed" and "designated" are two different words], she's an out-and-out liar. Why even the WSJ publishes her is beyond me.

Speaking of the uninsured, I just entered that lovely niche market; my COBRA ran out on 10/31. Given that my medical bills were close to $500,000 this year [yes, half a million], no insurance company wants to touch me - even tho' the bulk of those expenses were for knee-replacement surgery, which won't have to be repeated for, say, 20 years, by which point I'll have Medicare, and a slip-and-fall pelvic fracture that was simply an accident. Continuation coverage is only available at $1500/month with a whopping deductible, altho' none of my medical bills had anything to do with the pre-existing condition I do have: asthma. This is particularly annoying as the insurance company had contracts with preferred providers and only paid out about 20% of the $500K amount.

Hell - a minor trip to the ER is several thousand dollars. A bad case of the flu segueing into bronchitis/pneumonia [which has happened in the past] and it's call the bankruptcy lawyer...

Posted by: Dahan | November 6, 2009 8:50 PM

jojame.

You seem to miss the entire point. This only works if EVERYONE pays in. Eventually those young healthy people will get old and sick. If we haven't done anything, how will those people pay for their helath-care? Hmmm. I suppose at that time we could ask everyone to pay and we could take care of that.

Wait. That's what we're doing now. We've been putting off the obvious and the neccessary for a long time. No more.

As far as the illegal immigrants; they will n ot be covered.

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Posted by: jojame | November 6, 2009 9:03 PM

@Dahan #67

I guess I am missing the point. Why can't health insurance work like every other insurance? The young people who pay the premiums receive the benefits of the insurance. If you wish to opt out then that's entirely your choice. It wouldn't matter if everyone pays into the system.

Old people can buy insurance as they get older or they can invest the extra money they received by not paying for insurance to pay for themselves as they get older.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 6, 2009 9:17 PM

Now I have a mental picture of Bullwinkle on a riding mower.

Posted by: Dahan | November 6, 2009 9:22 PM

Jojame,

Health insurance is different in important ways from other types of insurance. I'm going to be lazy here and link you to an article since it's close enough to what I see and believe and I don't feel like writing a lot.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/hearing/2009/05/health_care_debate_warms_up.html

Posted by: Jules | November 6, 2009 9:27 PM

@1
Uncle Glenny,
Thanks for posting that. I've recently left the great state of Oklahoma, but I consider it home. Imagine my embarrassment at reading the rather kooky words of Senator Brogdon...who happens to be my ex's brother-in-law. Nice guy, but he doesn't think too good. We have a saying for folks like him, "Bless his heart."

I'm glad to see that poll is going our way.

Posted by: jojame | November 6, 2009 9:57 PM

If they're valuable contributors to society then why are they illegal? You can take the stance that they should be granted amnesty and the immigration laws should change but that should be in it's own bill. If a health care bill is passed then the decision then illegal immigrants can see the benefits once they're granted amnesty. There is no reason to politicize the health care debate even further.

Posted by: EricB | November 6, 2009 10:17 PM

Just voted....not 86% yes
approx. 3500 votes to 500 votes
man when the people at this site really want to get something done, it gets done.

So wonderful to see the Republicans show their true colors: hate common Americans, live for money, and will throw their own spouses under the bus if given the chance.

Posted by: jojame | November 6, 2009 10:39 PM

@Dahan #79
By the fact that they are illegal means that they shouldn't be in this country. If you don't like the immigration laws then you should be fighting those laws. You misinterpreted your quote of me. If they were valuable contributors then we should use that as an argument for granting amnesty but not to give them health care without amnesty. I was trying to bring light to the fact that the health care debate and the debate on immigration should be kept separate. Many people would dislike the health care bill if they knew it would help illegal immigrants with their own tax money.

Posted by: Dahan | November 6, 2009 10:53 PM

Johame,

OK, that's not how it came off to me, but I'm willing to allow that that's what you meant.

I'm wasn't here to talk about immigration laws. You brought up immigrants in post #65, I took the bait.

If an illegal immigrant comes to the emergency room with a heart attack, we're not going to close the door on him/her and let them die in the street. Americans don't like that sort of thing either. Just like they don't like to pay taxes to help illegal immigrants (or to pay for anything else, by and large).

So, what's your suggested solution? How does this effect our decision to all pay into the system? I don't see the point you're trying to make. I did see the one about young people, I just disagreed.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 6, 2009 11:09 PM

Jojame is a bigot. He proved it on the Gay Marriage Poll thread. He just hates people who aren't like him. My guess is that he is also a liberturd, without any social conscience.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 6, 2009 11:29 PM

The funny thing about this debate is that much of the "illegal immigration" going on is Mexicans moving to the Southwestern US, which the US got by outright stealing it during the Mexican–American War (ever wonder why there was so many places in the US with Spanish names?). Yeah, Mexico signed a treaty granting them the land, but if someone broke into your house and at gunpoint forced you to sign over the deed to them would you say that was a fair deal?

Ulysses S. Grant, who participated in the Mexican-American war, saw the Civil War as God's punishment:

"The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times."

Of course he didn't feel sorry enough to do something about it during his presidency.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | November 6, 2009 11:30 PM

The illegal immigrant issue is just a red herring that lets bigots feel that their bigotry is somehow justified. It really is irrelevant to the reform debate.
What I find most sickening is that every argument I've heard against a public option is a fiscal one. It's okay with them that tens of thousands of people die every year unnecessarily, as long as their taxes aren't affected. Immoral schmucks.

Posted by: llewelly | November 7, 2009 12:07 AM

Posted by: jojame | November 6, 2009 10:39 PM:

I was trying to bring light to the fact that the health care debate and the debate on immigration should be kept separate.

The first mention of "illegal immigrants" occurred here.

Your dishonesty is hilarious.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 7, 2009 12:38 AM

If a comment gets queued awaiting moderation, you can just kiss it goodbye -- it's not going to show up. We're currently getting between 100 and 200 spam posts an hour, most of which get caught by the spam filters and tossed into the same queue that your post is in...and no, I'm not ever going to wade into that swamp. Comments that get queued are basically gone.

Ew.

Maybe it's time to turn signon back on.

Have you considered the hack of making the signon page (one that works, I mean) as a local page on your blog rather than one generated by the "Sign in" link?

Posted by: Kratos | November 7, 2009 12:57 AM

Rochester is a Republican town.

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | November 7, 2009 2:40 AM

So not only does PZ have trophy wife, he's got a backyard the size of Belgium too? The EAC must be paying him handsomely indeed ...

Posted by: mythusmage | November 7, 2009 5:19 AM

I'm against the health bill because I know what it's like to have government health care coverage. It works like this...

In order to curtail health care fraud the Feds and the states put limits on how much they will reimburse health care providers. They also insist on lots of paperwork, meaning health care providers have to hire people to fill out that paperwork. Between the shortfall in payment for services rendered, plus all the paperwork that has to be filled out, people relying on private insurance and those paying cash have to shell out more. In effect, along with the taxes you're all paying for my medical care, you get to pay even more in medical fees directly to your doctor to cover their costs for treating people like me.

Of course, the myth you're getting free medical care through your insurance doesn't help matters any. Every good or service costs, that's the crux of it. Even when it doesn't cost you, it's costing somebody. Those providing the service pay to provide it. It costs for the material, it costs for the making of the material. This is not a matter of wish fulfillment where you can arcanely wiggly your fingers and everything is all hunky-dory. It takes resources, energy, and effort, and that has to be paid for. Reality doesn't stop applying simply because it would be convenient.

You're asking too much of your health insurance, that is what it comes down to. Reserve it for catastrophes and calamities and I expect your medical costs would decrease drastically.

Posted by: Walton | November 7, 2009 5:41 AM

A couple of points. I know I always weigh in on these healthcare debates: but at least it's on-topic, so I won't be accused of hijacking the thread.

Firstly, "40 million uninsured", while technically true, disguises the reality of the numbers. Around 9.5 million of those are undocumented immigrants; a further 17 million earn more than the median household income, so could afford insurance but choose not to. And around 45% of all uninsured persons, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will be insured again within a few months. The chronically uninsurable are a much smaller group - maybe 9 to 14 million. This doesn't mean it's not a problem: it is, as there are some people who genuinely have no access to insurance through no fault of their own, a situation which ought to be remedied. But I would point out that the status quo is not quite as bad, on a statistical level, as the media often claim.

Obama's plan, in itself, seems quite reasonable and non-coercive; as long as no one is required to accept the public option, I don't see how it could be considered objectionable. Unfortunately, what does worry me is that the public plan will end up costing an absolute fortune. The US federal government already spends over $600 billion a year on Medicare and Medicaid, an unsustainable level of spending. Considering that people who already have good healthcare will probably stay with their existing private plans, while those people who are currently uninsurable due to chronic health problems will move into the public plan, I don't see how the new public plan is going to control costs and ensure that they don't exceed revenues.

This isn't to say that the system doesn't need reforming. It does, and I think Obama is right to be at least making an attempt at change. And the blithering hysteria about "death panels" emanating from some Republicans is preventing a sensible and coherent debate from taking place. So I'm not, in any way, defending the American right wing. But I would argue, at the same time, that there are legitimate reasons to be sceptical of the healthcare reform bill.

Posted by: Elladan | November 7, 2009 5:58 AM

Harry @ 99: I'll admit, I can hardly claim to be an expert on the nation of Mexico's health care system. Certainly my friend is not planning on moving back (for various reasons) -- but if she did, she could at least be assured of fine health care at no charge.

Of course, I suppose I should mention the (in this context, somewhat ironic) fact that she's a documented immigrant, so hopping on a plane back to Mexico to receive free health care would certainly be a lot simpler for her than it would be for someone without papers.

Perhaps undocumented immigrants from Mexico are a drain on our health system, for the precise reason that our border patrol prevents them from easily crossing the border to obtain treatment for free back home!

Posted by: pjnoir | November 7, 2009 9:50 AM

I don't want to live in a socialist country where doctors cannot have multi membership to country clubs.

Really people i know im preaching to the choir but aren't we already socialist (thanks to wwII). You can have a hybred political system.
We live in a country that demands pure jingoism at the drop of the hat- its about time the government returns the favor.

Posted by: jeffk | November 7, 2009 10:33 AM

I just don't buy this "healthy twenty-somethings just don't need health care". Everyone needs health care. Unexpected things happen. Potential problems are averted. And are these twenty-somethings sexually active? I hope so because it would suck for them if they weren't - and if they are, they need health care to get checked out every now and then.

One of the stranger things about conservatives, to me, is that there are times when I'd think even if they were only about money and efficiency, they could recognize a good investment when they saw one - eg, paying for 10 years of health care for a person in their twenties will pay off when that person is sixty, or paying for good education will make us money when the kids can design bridges instead of dig ditches. But somehow, they never do.

Posted by: DCW | November 7, 2009 12:42 PM

I get a kick out PZ Myers' unreasoning faith in big government for everything, most recently healthcare.

He pretends to be such a rational scientist. But, I doubt he has ever read and studied any of the problems with the British healthcare system and other socialist systems.

Oh well, it wouldn't matter to him anyway. He has true faith in Big Government and as PZ knows there is is nothing more irrational than true faith in something.

Posted by: will | November 7, 2009 1:13 PM

"He pretends to be such a rational scientist. But, I doubt he has ever read and studied any of the problems with the British healthcare system and other socialist systems."

All of us who live in countries with some form of socialized or single-payer health care (and there are a very wide range of options between the extremes of state-run health care a private, free-market free for all) are well aware of the limitations and imperfections of our health systems. But few of us would trade what we've got for what Americans have.

Any way you slice it, Americans pay a lot more for their health care than the rest of the developed world, but they don't get better care overall. For those who can afford to pay, American health care is the undisputed best in the world. But that level of care is out of reach for most Americans. As a Canadian, if I were fabulously wealthy, I would also have access to top-tier American health care if I needed it; I don't think the doctors care where you come from as long as you carry cash. On the other hand, as a middle income Canadian, I am secure in the knowledge that I can visit the doctor when I need to, and I can get an operation when I need it, and I don't have to worry about whether I'm covered, even if I lose my job. I may end up waiting months if I need a hip or knee replacement, but I'll get it, and if I need a life-saving operation tomorrow, I know I will get it, even if I have to be flown to a hospital on the other side of the country. There are limits: my 90% prescription drug coverage depends on me remaining employed and covered by my employer's health plan, but even if I did end up on my own, drugs here are substantially less expensive than the same drugs in the US.

Our health care system has lots of problems (for example, a lack of emphasis on preventative care; prescription drugs aren't normally covered by the public plan; long wait times for certain procedures that end up costing everyone more in the long run as a result) but it's hard to see how the average American wouldn't be better off under the Canadian or British or just about any other system in the developed world than they are right now.

Posted by: 1984 | November 7, 2009 2:30 PM

Fire, health care BAAD! War, torture GOOD!

Posted by: DCW | November 7, 2009 7:51 PM

"Any way you slice it, Americans pay a lot more for their health care than the rest of the developed world, but they don't get better care overall. For those who can afford to pay, American health care is the undisputed best in the world. But that level of care is out of reach for most Americans."

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, you can tell yourself that, but quality healthcare is not out of reach for most Americans.

We are not dying in the streets here except in those areas where wards of the state predominate, such as Detroit, New Orleans and the Indian Reservations.

Posted by: DCW | November 7, 2009 10:29 PM

"I'll give you just one stat in response - more than 60% of all personal bankruptcies in the USA are due to health care costs."

Sorry, I don't accept stats on faith. Please provide documentation and a credible source. And not a left-wing advocacy group.

What kills me the most about the Left and the current health-care debate is that you guys pretend that there is no existing social program net.

I recently spent 2 weeks in Psychiatric Hospital. I was diagnosed with depression with Psychotic features. This was my first experience with any mental health issue at Age 43 and I have revised my opinions in that area somewhat. I had nothing to base my opinions on before.

Anyway, I have private health insurance and I will have to pay tousand out of pocket for my stay at an excellent facility.

But you know what, those individuals who are totally destitute (wards of the state) get exactly the same care I did there. They migt not have health insurance per se, but other social programs catch them in their net.

Now, I believe those programs may need to be looked at and possibly cut, but you on the left should not pretend they don't exist.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 7, 2009 11:07 PM

Sorry, I don't accept stats on faith. Please provide documentation and a credible source. And not a left-wing advocacy group.

First, define what a "left-wing advocacy group" is. The Federal Department of Health and Human Services? The American Medical Association? Anyone to the left of Bill O'Reilly? Bill O'Reilly? I've seen conservatives and libertarians label sources as "left-wing" because the source didn't mirror the conservative's prejudices.

I suppose you'll claim CNN is "left-wing": Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies. Here's a Texas law firm saying the same thing.

Posted by: DCW | November 8, 2009 8:47 PM

From the CNN article "Tis Himself" posted.

"Woolhandler and her colleagues surveyed a random sample of 2,314 people who filed for bankruptcy in early 2007, looked at their court records, and then interviewed more than 1,000 of them."

The early 2007 date of the study stands out as probably not being applicable today. I am involved in specialized real estate appraisals and that date was before the mortgage meltdown really hit home. The rela estate peak had been passed but the Shit had not hit the fan yet.

I suspect in 2008 and 2009 far more bankruptcies were due to home issues than in the early 2007 timeframe cited in the article.

I have some other questions/concerns about the study. But an early 2007 study (given the housing meltdown) is probably not an applicable study to be citing today.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 8, 2009 9:27 PM

I knew DCW would find some excuse to reject the data. Despite his whines about "early 2007" and "mortgage meltdown," the real reason he doesn't like the statistics is they don't support his prejudices.

Posted by: JBlilie | November 9, 2009 8:19 AM

I don't understand why so many Americans are happy with the health system they have.

Because they literally don't know any better.

Exactly the same reason that they mostly oppose mass transit systems, especially rail-based ones: They literally don't know any better. I have yet to meet an American who doesn't return from any major European city saying, "Wow, sure wish we had a subway system like ..."

When I fell ill in Europe, I just went to the doctor and they treated me and that was that. They just booked it to the system and all was well. They believe in even taking care of visitors.