Dn Is A Fiscal Conservative?

[sholden 0]

There is a very simple real world test for who has the best care. Where do the world's richest people get their care? I live in Minnesota, so I can tell you: the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. Johns-Hopkins also gets a fair share of the world's wealthy.

You can't really be that stupid, right?Obviously if you are wealthy you would prefer a health care system in which the people who can pay get to go first and since you are paying for it anyway get the best treatment you can afford for that particular condition.If however, you are poor then you would prefer a health care system in which those with more urgent cases go first and health dollars are spent in the way that maximises their utility.You also think people should just pay individually for coverage by the police and fire fighters right? If you can't afford to pay you monthly police premium then nothing will be done about the burglar who shot your wife while robbing your home since it was in an oncovered house to an uncovered person? The world's richest people will still be happy, after all they'll get far more police resources dedicated to the stuff they care about.House on fire? Hope you kept your fire fighter payments current.

[hblask 1]

OK, I have some time, so I wanted to elaborate on a point I alluded to earlier. It's the number one problem with a single payer system. It's the reason why any system that breaks the connection between supply and demand is doomed to fail.The number one, unsolvable problem of socialized medicine: the technology cost curve. There is no way to introduce new technologies into a socialized system, so what you get is 'technology lock-in'. This was seen in the Soviet countries before the wall fell. Why does this occur? Because with all technologies, the early adopters pay the development costs so that it is cheaper for those who can wait. Think digital cameras. Back when digital cameras first came out, I paid about $800 for a camera that you couldn't give away today. It was huge, slow, and took mediocre pictures. But thanks to those of us who funded that early research, digital cameras are affordable and extremely high-quality today.What does this have to do with medicine? Medical technology is introduced the same way. Whether it is a new drug, or a new test, or a new machine, there is a startup cost and a trial-and-error period. So what happens to these new technologies under a single-payer system? Let's use a new miracle drug as an example.First of all, what incentive does a company have to create a new drug? Profit. That's it. Creating new drugs is a difficult process. You don't just sit down one night and say "I think I'll make a new drug that does XYZ", then go to work the next day and do it. It takes years of painstaking research and development. Who pays for that? Currently, it's the early adopter -- those who really want it.Under a socialist system, how does that get paid for? By letting bureaucrats in Washington DC decide which drugs are "promising" and "important"? Hah, funny. There are people who make their living deciding these things and still make mistakes. Do we really believe bureaucrats will make accurate decisions on which drugs to fund and which to let die? Which are medically promising, and which are pipe dreams? I don't think so....So let's say a compnay went ahead and created the drug anyway. It turns out they have a pill that gives a 90% chance of adding 1 year of excellent health to your life, a 9% chance of doing nothing, and a 1% chance of leading to a mild condition that requires further corrective treatment. Does the single payer system pay for it? Oh, there's a catch. The drug costs $100,000 per year, and you have to start taking it at age 40. Now does the single payer system pay for it? Remember, this is single-payer, one-size-fits-all. Does everyone get this pill, or nobody? Obviously, the answer is nobody. Under a free market system, a few rich people would choose to buy it (remember my digital camera?). After a few years of profitability, the company can discover a way to produce it more cheaply. Now the cost drops to $80,000/year, and a few more people buy it, and so on and so on. In perhaps a decade, the pill only costs $200/year, and you don't have to take it until age 50 and it adds two years. Now does the single-payer system pay for it? Who knows, because it never got that far. It can't. The product died in R&D, if it ever made it that far. We are stuck with the technology that existed at the time the single-payer system was implemented.Now, imagine more complicated decisions, drugs that work only half the time but solve a rare medical issue that nothing else can for a small segment of the population, or a machine that improves diagnosis by just a few percent but costs 50% more, etc, etc. How are these questions dealt with by distant bureaucrats with no working knowledge of any individuals needs or desires or of the costs or risks associated with development?So how do the socialist medical systems of the world now do it? It's obvious, isn' t it? They let the US pay the development costs, and then after the prices drop and the technology is established, then they adopt it. But what happens if the last of the semi-free markets goes socialist? Where does the new technology come from then? Do we really want to be stuck with 2007 medicine in 2050?Nobody has ever offered a solution to this problem because there isn't one. Some people like to pretend the government can just get smart enough experts to get the decisions correct, but 100 years of trial-and-error with that line of thinking pretty much eliminates that as a possible solution, at least among those who have studied history. No, this is the unpreventable failure of central planning, the one that has doomed every socialist pipe dream since the progressive age began.

[hblask 1]

You can't really be that stupid, right?Obviously if you are wealthy you would prefer a health care system in which the people who can pay get to go first and since you are paying for it anyway get the best treatment you can afford for that particular condition.If however, you are poor then you would prefer a health care system in which those with more urgent cases go first and health dollars are spent in the way that maximises their utility.You also think people should just pay individually for coverage by the police and fire fighters right? If you can't afford to pay you monthly police premium then nothing will be done about the burglar who shot your wife while robbing your home since it was in an oncovered house to an uncovered person? The world's richest people will still be happy, after all they'll get far more police resources dedicated to the stuff they care about.House on fire? Hope you kept your fire fighter payments current.

Well, at least you admit that the care in the US is superior to those of other nations. That's a start. Now read my previous post on the unavoidable flaw of socialism.The problem with your theory that a socialist system works for the poor is that history shows it doesn't. In socialist countries, the rich and powerful move to the front of the line just like they do everywhere. The lawmakers don't wait for care in Canada, the poor people do. The promise of 'equal care for all' is an empty platitude designed to sell snake oil to the masses.As for your private fire and police services question, some cities do have a voluntary pay system for the fire department, and it works quite well. Private security companies are hugely successful throughout the country. And here's a hint: the poor pay for services one way or another; a centrally planned system just disguises the costs by not making the poor write a check directly.

[akoff 0]

The irony is its the same people who think that the American government is inept at handling the things that they currently have on their plate that think they should take over health care.I'll stick with the system the way it is thank you. If I don't like my doctor or my hospital, I am free to go find another one. I can see specialists and get second opinions. If someone thinks that the government can't even handle the aftermath of a hurricane or a war is going to be suddenly much more competent when they are making decisions about my health what are they basing it on?Either they are idiots or they aren't. You can't pick and choose.

and I will agree they are idiots...stay out

Well, at least you admit that the care in the US is superior to those of other nations. That's a start. Now read my previous post on the unavoidable flaw of socialism.The problem with your theory that a socialist system works for the poor is that history shows it doesn't. In socialist countries, the rich and powerful move to the front of the line just like they do everywhere. The lawmakers don't wait for care in Canada, the poor people do. The promise of 'equal care for all' is an empty platitude designed to sell snake oil to the masses.As for your private fire and police services question, some cities do have a voluntary pay system for the fire department, and it works quite well. Private security companies are hugely successful throughout the country. And here's a hint: the poor pay for services one way or another; a centrally planned system just disguises the costs by not making the poor write a check directly.

that is a fine summary of socialism

[whatgreatis 0]

Let me tell you something, the Soviets completely ****ed up the worlds perception of left wing government. They did nearly everything TOTALLY WRONG. If you ask anybody (even me) who has studied the Soviet system of communism they'll tell you that. It wasn't even truly communism if you want to go by Karl Marx's definition. After the Russian civil war they told the world that THEY are the only ones who can do communism and EVERYONE has to follow their lead. Hence all the communist nations had ****ed up systems.Now what does that have to do with this? Well the Soviets certainly ****ed up health care and thats ruined moderate/right wing views on anything socialized. The right model for a socialist country is something along the lines of Sweden or France which are social democracy's. Let me make it clear though that Europe doesn't get all of their products from the United States. Governments are still capable of proper funding for research and development. Our government properly funds programs like Medicare/Medicaid fine. As I'm typing this I'm talking to my European friends about their health care system. They assure me its not in "ruins" or "on the brink of collapse" like most right-wingers would like to think. They tell me that they provide quality service with up to date medical equipment. The only problem they have is the slow waiting times and their country's are dealing with it. France has done a lot to speed up the waiting times. All of the people I talk to who live in Europe tell me that if its a life and death medical operation that you WILL get immediate treatment. I don't even see how people who live in America their whole life can dispute this because they have no idea at all.None of my pro-market friends have told me any solution for the lefts biggest problem with market medical service. The insurance company's TRY to deny you coverage. How can you defend a system that is legally forced to trying to screw you out of coverage? Thats how they make their money, by turning down coverage. Okay, so they cant turn down coverage on people with a group plan but what about everyone who isn't in a group? The chronically ill have way too many problems with insurance company's trying to deny them coverage than they need to deal with. They should be focused on getting better, not fighting for their financial life.Why don't you try to tell me that insurance company's aren't evil? I'll give you as many cases as you want where they deny good hard working Americans coverage and make them become bankrupt. Isn't it strange that our medical system forces people onto the streets? That wont happen with universal health care.

[Dr_Jeff 0]

Let me tell you something, the Soviets completely ****ed up the worlds perception of left wing government. They did nearly everything TOTALLY WRONG. If you ask anybody (even me) who has studied the Soviet system of communism they'll tell you that. It wasn't even truly communism if you want to go by Karl Marx's definition. After the Russian civil war they told the world that THEY are the only ones who can do communism and EVERYONE has to follow their lead. Hence all the communist nations had ****ed up systems.Now what does that have to do with this? Well the Soviets certainly ****ed up health care and thats ruined moderate/right wing views on anything socialized. The right model for a socialist country is something along the lines of Sweden or France which are social democracy's. Let me make it clear though that Europe doesn't get all of their products from the United States. Governments are still capable of proper funding for research and development. Our government properly funds programs like Medicare/Medicaid fine. As I'm typing this I'm talking to my European friends about their health care system. They assure me its not in "ruins" or "on the brink of collapse" like most right-wingers would like to think. They tell me that they provide quality service with up to date medical equipment. The only problem they have is the slow waiting times and their country's are dealing with it. France has done a lot to speed up the waiting times. All of the people I talk to who live in Europe tell me that if its a life and death medical operation that you WILL get immediate treatment. I don't even see how people who live in America their whole life can dispute this because they have no idea at all.None of my pro-market friends have told me any solution for the lefts biggest problem with market medical service. The insurance company's TRY to deny you coverage. How can you defend a system that is legally forced to trying to screw you out of coverage? Thats how they make their money, by turning down coverage. Okay, so they cant turn down coverage on people with a group plan but what about everyone who isn't in a group? The chronically ill have way too many problems with insurance company's trying to deny them coverage than they need to deal with. They should be focused on getting better, not fighting for their financial life.Why don't you try to tell me that insurance company's aren't evil? I'll give you as many cases as you want where they deny good hard working Americans coverage and make them become bankrupt. Isn't it strange that our medical system forces people onto the streets? That wont happen with universal health care.

Yes it will, the ones with the consonants after their names. (MD, DO, RN, DC, CRNP)

[whatgreatis 0]

You forget one thing. Waiting for care is better than no care at all.

[whatgreatis 0]

Yes it will, the ones with the consonants after their names. (MD, DO, RN, DC, CRNP)

Thats who your worried about? Not the masses? Listen, doctors will always be able to find jobs, ALWAYS. There is a overwhelming need for medical professionals all over the world. People who work for insurance company's can be part of the new plan, they are not all going to be jobless, they just wont work for insurance companies, they'll work for the government.

[hblask 1]

Let me tell you something, the Soviets completely ****ed up the worlds perception of left wing government. They did nearly everything TOTALLY WRONG. If you ask anybody (even me) who has studied the Soviet system of communism they'll tell you that. It wasn't even truly communism if you want to go by Karl Marx's definition. After the Russian civil war they told the world that THEY are the only ones who can do communism and EVERYONE has to follow their lead. Hence all the communist nations had ****ed up systems.

Ah, yes, the old "that wasn't real socialism" argument. Nevermind that every example of "real socialism" has turned into the same trash heap.... I'm sure the NEXT one will be the one that WORKS!

Now what does that have to do with this? Well the Soviets certainly ****ed up health care and thats ruined moderate/right wing views on anything socialized. The right model for a socialist country is something along the lines of Sweden or France which are social democracy's. Let me make it clear though that Europe doesn't get all of their products from the United States. Governments are still capable of proper funding for research and development. Our government properly funds programs like Medicare/Medicaid fine.

Yes, governments can occasionally fund a product that reaches the market. Is their success rate anywhere near what the real experts working in industry can achieve? No. Can they let go of failed attempts and cut their losses like private industry? No.As for the Medi-scam programs in the US, this is your example of "proper funding"? That's pretty funny.

As I'm typing this I'm talking to my European friends about their health care system. They assure me its not in "ruins" or "on the brink of collapse" like most right-wingers would like to think. They tell me that they provide quality service with up to date medical equipment. The only problem they have is the slow waiting times and their country's are dealing with it. France has done a lot to speed up the waiting times.

Once again, we have the "we are just about to get it right" argument. How many years before you give up thinking a fix is just around the corner. Waiting lists are not just a trivial blip on the edge of care; it is a central issue.

All of the people I talk to who live in Europe tell me that if its a life and death medical operation that you WILL get immediate treatment. I don't even see how people who live in America their whole life can dispute this because they have no idea at all.None of my pro-market friends have told me any solution for the lefts biggest problem with market medical service. The insurance company's TRY to deny you coverage. How can you defend a system that is legally forced to trying to screw you out of coverage? Thats how they make their money, by turning down coverage. Okay, so they cant turn down coverage on people with a group plan but what about everyone who isn't in a group? The chronically ill have way too many problems with insurance company's trying to deny them coverage than they need to deal with. They should be focused on getting better, not fighting for their financial life.Why don't you try to tell me that insurance company's aren't evil? I'll give you as many cases as you want where they deny good hard working Americans coverage and make them become bankrupt. Isn't it strange that our medical system forces people onto the streets? That wont happen with universal health care.

Insurance companies are not evil, they are amoral (neither evil nor good). They are what they are. First off, if you have a good contract, there is usually no debate over what is covered and what isn't. Eventually there will be something on the border between "clearly covered" and "clearly not covered", because medicine can't be placed neatly into compartments. These disputes can be settled through arbitration or court. Attacking a simple civil dispute with a centrally planned socialist program is like dropping an atomic bomb to catch a shoplifter.Furthermore, insurance companies are not good examples of free markets, nor are doctors services. Insurance companies have so many rules and regulations that they have practically no latitude in dealing with customers. And customers have very limited choices on what insurance companies they can choose from because of the unnecessary regulations. In a true free market, the insurance companies would not only have to compete on price, but on their reputation of paying for what they promise to pay for. If a company starts getting a reputation for refusing payment, they would quickly go extinct. The only way they can survive is with political protection as is currently the case with HMOs.

[Mikey Ravioli 0]

blah, blah, intellectual bullshit, blah, blah,

and I will agree they are idiots...stay out

So you would willingly and in fact rather put your health care decisions in the hands of idiots? Have you ever even had a health care issue? I have. I am a colon cancer survivor. I am here today because I got a good education and got a good job that offers good health insurance. I can personally attest that our system works just fine. At no point when the Dr told my wife and I in the hospital that I had cancer did I ever think, hmmmm... maybe I should move to Cuba.

[whatgreatis 0]

I've gotta go for a few hours but I'll be quick when I say this. Socalism and Communism are two different things. And real Communism as Karl Marx writes has NEVER been implemented. I dont know how you say Socialism doesnt work? I talk to all my European friends and their health care is great. If you ask people in Europe they'll say their system is fine (besides some long waits). Clearly you dont know many people outside the United States and if you do you dont take the time to have conversations on their health care system.Which leads me to the point you didnt address in your last post, having to wait a little while for care is better than no care at all.The only problem with socialized medicine is the waiting times, European countrys health care systems are not on the brink of collapse. I dont know how many times I have to type it. Besides waiting times should be the least of our worries when people are going bankrupt because insurence companys wont cover the cost.Anyways, I'm going to move this in a different direction. What do you guys think about the Massachusets health plan? It could be the future of national coverage.

[hblask 1]

Thats who your worried about? Not the masses? Listen, doctors will always be able to find jobs, ALWAYS. There is a overwhelming need for medical professionals all over the world. People who work for insurance company's can be part of the new plan, they are not all going to be jobless, they just wont work for insurance companies, they'll work for the government.

Uh, if there are no doctors, who will "the masses" get treatment from? Why would anyone take a stressful, difficult job if it pays less than many much easier jobs?

[hblask 1]

I've gotta go for a few hours but I'll be quick when I say this. Socalism and Communism are two different things. And real Communism as Karl Marx writes has NEVER been implemented. I dont know how you say Socialism doesnt work? I talk to all my European friends and their health care is great. If you ask people in Europe they'll say their system is fine (besides some long waits). Clearly you dont know many people outside the United States and if you do you dont take the time to have conversations on their health care system.Which leads me to the point you didnt address in your last post, having to wait a little while for care is better than no care at all.The only problem with socialized medicine is the waiting times, European countrys health care systems are not on the brink of collapse. I dont know how many times I have to type it. Besides waiting times should be the least of our worries when people are going bankrupt because insurence companys wont cover the cost.Anyways, I'm going to move this in a different direction. What do you guys think about the Massachusets health plan? It could be the future of national coverage.

You keep dismissing wait lists as if it was a trivial side effect of socialism. It's not. It's a direct result of breaking the link between supply and demand. Socialist medical systems in all countries that have them are in crisis. They can't afford to provide the resources to give people timely healthcare. People in the US only THINK healthcare is expensive, but if you have to limp around on a painful knee for 8 months because that's the waiting list for knee surgery, maybe it won't seem so expensive.The myth that there is a crisis in healthcare in the US is tired. I've offered many people this challenge, and nobody has accepted. If there is a crisis in healthcare in the US, then there must be at least 1/2 of 1% of the population that can't get care, right? So here is the challenge:Find 1/2 of 1% of the three million US residents (that's 15,000 people) who meet ALL of the following conditions:1) Cannot afford health care, no matter how they adjust their consumption patterns and lifestyles.2) Need health care3) Have actively sought health care through hospitals and community resources.4) Were unable to get healthcareThat's it, 0.5% of the population. I don't personally think that constitutes a crisis, but for the sake of argument, let's say it does. So let's have the names and stories of 15,000 people who meet all of these criteria. Go.Oh, and a couple anecdotes won't do, because I have dozens of stories from Canada and England of people who tried their best to get care through all means possible and ended up either dying or coming to the US for treatment. One person sued the Canadian govt to force it to pay for treatment in the US because his case was urgent and he couldn't get care in the US. I guarantee you, for every person in the US who you can track down who meets all four criteria above, I can come up with several stories of socialism victims who were denied coverage.

[Dr_Jeff 0]

Thats who your worried about? Not the masses? Listen, doctors will always be able to find jobs, ALWAYS. There is a overwhelming need for medical professionals all over the world. People who work for insurance company's can be part of the new plan, they are not all going to be jobless, they just wont work for insurance companies, they'll work for the government.

Yes, it's who I worry about! I'm one of them. It will have great effect my family, and several of my close friends, and their families. What you don't seem to understand, is that it will no longer be cost effective to keep treating patients. I would then be doing something else that would be molre financially rewarding. I see enough patients for free now, why would I want to keep that up.Try talking to your family doc about it. If they are open about it, they will most likely agree. I wouldn't waste my time doing this job under socialized care. My family needs to eat too!What is it that you do? Let's let the goverment control the cost of that, and see if you can make a living at it! Remember to factor in that the goverment will give you a paycut every year, so that you have to work more just to earn the same living. I see about twice as many patients as I did 10 years ago, and make about the same amount.

[El Guapo 10]

To Dr. Jeff, I find it hard to believe that a GP is having a hard time taking home $90,000, I have a DC client that is a the start of his business with the nicest office I have ever seen a DC have with fairly high overhead and he clears just about 90k right now and he is 32 years old.Also I have a podiatrist who just started his practice 2 years ago clears 250k(take home) and he expects to be at 500k within 5 years, also in a very nice office with high overhead.hblask - you are point with most of what you have said throughout this thread.whatgreatis - I think we seriously need to send McArthur after you. I have never ever heard someone as pro communism as you are. A true Marxist society is impossible, it is utopia and does not exist because it is still not utopia for everyone, think StarTrek. Good example of this is in office space when they are talking about what you would do if you had a million dollars and Michael Bolton said that is a bullshit excersize because there would be nobody to clean up sh1t. Same goes here, you give a doctor 35,000 dollars a year you will eventually have no doctors, we have one on here telling us that. Why is that so hard to believe.Im an investment advisor, if I did not have the ability to make very good money I would not do it, I help people with their finances and started my practice from ZERO, if I knew no matter how well I did and how much uch schooling i have gone through to get to where I am today that I would not be able to increase my income, I would not do it. It does not matter how many people I have helped along the way, I'm not doing it for free.

[scram 1]

I've gotta go for a few hours but I'll be quick when I say this. Socalism and Communism are two different things. And real Communism as Karl Marx writes has NEVER been implemented. I dont know how you say Socialism doesnt work? I talk to all my European friends and their health care is great. If you ask people in Europe they'll say their system is fine (besides some long waits). Clearly you dont know many people outside the United States and if you do you dont take the time to have conversations on their health care system.

Socialism has great appeal to life failures and the mediocre.If you are an employer rather than an employee- an owner rather than a renter- a producer rather than a consumer- socialism is a beast that expects you to work harder and give more for the benefit of your inferiors. Show me someone in favor of socialism, and I'll lay odds on the present state of their bank account, the overall status of their personal wealth and the general manner in which they conduct life.

[scram 1]

The promise of 'equal care for all' is an empty platitude designed to sell snake oil to the masses.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

- ChurchillEasily the best quotes on socialism I've ever read.Churchill is such an amazing man. The more I read his writings, the more amazed I am that philosophical beliefs and notions I personally came to believe through my own life experiences have been summarized by him at some point (only a bazillion times more eloquently and succinctly than I could ever say it)

[checkymcfold 0]

Show me someone in favor of socialism, and I'll lay odds on the present state of their bank account, the overall status of their personal wealth and the general manner in which they conduct life.

and that will illustrate a vague sense of human greed. congrats.the problem with strident institutions of socialism or communism isn't that they "share misery," which, while a nice rhetorical move by mr. churchill, doesn't actually mean anything. the problem with socialism and communism is that they can facilitate--indeed, sometimes they even call for--laziness on the part of its citizenry. ultimately, it's more of a general psychological problem than a political or sociophilosophical one, and it sure as hell doesn't reside in the theoretical formulations of socialist or communist models. this would also largely account for why various smaller scale socialist projects have worked just fine or sometimes better than their freemarket counterparts, while gigantic socialist/communist regimes have generally buckled and had their economic growth stymied.

[whatgreatis 0]

For the record I'm not a communist, I believe in social democracy's where free market and government regulation are intermixed. But if you guys remember the great depression from 1929-1941 (roughly, some say it ended in 1942 once the war effort got fully underway) the only country prospering during that period was the USSR. It saw enormous growths in industry and agriculture capacity.But I'd like to know your guy's thoughts on the health care plan currently being experimented with in Massachusetts. I'd particularly like to know what Dr. Jeff has to say about this.(lol@McAurther joke. He wanted to nuke China during the Korean War. He was crazy.)

[hblask 1]

For the record I'm not a communist, I believe in social democracy's where free market and government regulation are intermixed. But if you guys remember the great depression from 1929-1941 (roughly, some say it ended in 1942 once the war effort got fully underway) the only country prospering during that period was the USSR. It saw enormous growths in industry and agriculture capacity.But I'd like to know your guy's thoughts on the health care plan currently being experimented with in Massachusetts. I'd particularly like to know what Dr. Jeff has to say about this.(lol@McAurther joke. He wanted to nuke China during the Korean War. He was crazy.)

Any health care plan that further weakens the connection between supply and demand will worsen the problems we face in this country. The problem is that we already have too many barriers breaking that important link; adding more may will push the system over the edge, creating ever greater demands for socialized care, pushing it further down, creating greater demands, etc, etc.

[El Guapo 10]

For the record I'm not a communist, I believe in social democracy's where free market and government regulation are intermixed. But if you guys remember the great depression from 1929-1941 (roughly, some say it ended in 1942 once the war effort got fully underway) the only country prospering during that period was the USSR. It saw enormous growths in industry and agriculture capacity.But I'd like to know your guy's thoughts on the health care plan currently being experimented with in Massachusetts. I'd particularly like to know what Dr. Jeff has to say about this.(lol@McAurther joke. He wanted to nuke China during the Korean War. He was crazy.)

Its also the new deal that helped us get out of the depression that began the plethora of social systems we have now and has screwed us as far as social security goes. Not to get off on too much of a tangent with social systems. Did you know that when social security was created the average life expectancy of male in the US was 60, but you could not draw until 62. No wondered we are screwed, the based off a system where over 50% of the people would never be around to collect, now the average life expectancy is somwhere between 78 and 83 depending on current. Socialism at its finest, a short term answer with long term failure.

[sholden 0]

Show me someone in favor of socialism, and I'll lay odds on the present state of their bank account, the overall status of their personal wealth and the general manner in which they conduct life.

I prefer the Australian health care system to the US health care system (I've experienced both) and since Australia has "universal health care" it's a socialised system and hence I must be in favour of socialism...So what odds are you laying and for what exactly?

[Miguel McHarris 0]

Just because universal health care works in one country doesn't mean it'll work in another. The fact is the U.S. gov't sucks at pretty much everything. Whether it's caring for wounded soldiers in VA hospitals, the war in Iraq or disaster relief. Hurricane Katrina is the perfect example of government failure on every level and I just can't believe that there is still a fairly large portion of our society that wants more gov't involvement. We (the U.S) are a country based on self reliance and the governments only purpose is to protect the people. Allowing it to take over health care system would be a horrendous mistake.And I agree with scram on Churchill. Easily the most brilliant political mind of the 20th century, perhaps ever.

[El Guapo 10]

Gotta love that socialized medicine. They pay well on legitamite law suits too!!Wed Aug 29, 9:07 AM ET BERLIN (Reuters) - A German court has awarded 3,000 euros ($4,100) in damages to a man who had to have the top of his skull replaced with plastic because of a faulty hospital fridge. ADVERTISEMENT Doctors removed the top of the man's head and put it in cold storage while they operated on his brain, the court in the western city of Koblenz said Tuesday.Because the refrigerator was defective, the section of skull was not kept cool enough and could not be reattached. Doctors replaced the bone with a plastic prosthesis.The man sought compensation of at least 20,000 euros on the grounds that the prosthesis caused him headaches, affected his balance and made him unduly sensitivity to the weather.Following consultations with experts, the court found that the operation had caused the man's discomfort, not the loss of the top of his skull.Compensation of 3,000 euros was "appropriate and sufficient," it said."The experts consulted by the court concluded the new skull roof was better than the original," a court spokesman said.

[Dr_Jeff 0]

Sorry, I don't know enough about the program in Mass. I cannot comment inteligibly on it. El Guapo- nice use of the word plethora in you post. Fitting.