New Haven Independent

Posted by: Bill | July 27, 2009 12:19 PM

"If universal health care really didn't work in either country wouldn't you see riots in the street and the wholesale exodus of Canadians and the British to the U.S.?"

Using your illogic wouldn't the reverse be true? Where are the riots and exodus from the U.S.? Our problem is too many people entering not leaving.

Duh!

Posted by: lance | July 27, 2009 1:44 PM

if obama's health care plan is so great why are many democrats against it?

it's just an extension of the welfare hustling entitlement mongering.

you want something? pay for it your damn self and stop demanding that a stranger be forced purchase it for you.

Posted by: concrenedwestvilleres | July 27, 2009 3:16 PM

I have a friend who is American and lives in Norway (where socialized medicine exists). He suffered a bad knee injury. First he had to wait to see the doctor (about 1-2 weeks). Then he had to wait about a month for an x-ray (during which time he couldn't work). After that he was told he would have to wait 1-2 months for an MRI. He came back to the US and had the surgery done here and was recovering nicely in the time frame it would have taken just for him to have the MRI. Socialized medicine doesn't work- just ask the 22 year old guy from Britain who died becuase he was denied a liver transplant (he was an alcoholic, but he was willing to change. However the government said no and he died). Ask the countries that are working towards more privatization.

The author's reasoning about Canadian drugs being cheaper is a factor of economics. Canada has cheaper drugs and Americans pay for it. Drug companies spend billions on research and have to recoup it. If the US tried to negotiate drug costs, it would raise the Canadian costs and lower the United States to a medium point where they can recoup their costs. If the companies can't recoup their costs, they won't engage in the research and new drugs won't be on the market.

Obama's health plan will save money in the long run because people won't live long enough to use what they put in. Costs will be reduced because people won't have access to care they now have and will die (i.e. the elderly won't be able to extend lives as they do now which will also reduce social security).

True health care reform will reduce costs and guarantee access. First insurance shouldn't cover every doctor's visit. If someone is sick enought they can pay for a doctor and costs will be reduced because the doctors don't have to fill out and maintain insurance paperwork. Second, change the torts system so malpractice insurance comes down reducing doctors' costs further. Third, find ways to help medical students offset loans so they are not in debt 6 figures when they graduate. Fourth, insurance should cover hospitalization, tests, and catastrophic illnesses only. Premiums will come down significantly. Fifth, everyone should be required to have catastrophic coverage (even the young). You never know when it will be needed. Sixth, insurance companies should be nonprofit enterprises. They won't pay taxes nor would profit be their concern. They would be required to maintain capital levels to guarantee payments. Seventh, insurance companies should not be allowed to reject sick patients. Nor should patients be able to buy insurance, get their illness covered, and then drop the policy. Finally, the government should be nowhere near the provision of medical care. They have done such a great job maintaining infrastructure,the post office, and even Amtrak. All those are a mess- just think what they can do with our health care system.

Finally, comparing Denmark to the United States is a straw man comparison. Denmark is smaller, people don't drive as much, and are healthier than Americans. The use of their system is much less than the United States. Socialized medicine won't work here and will provide a cure worse than the disease.

Posted by: robn | July 28, 2009 8:45 AM

LANCE,

If strangers shouldn't be forced to pay for what other people want, can I have my money back for all of those bombs we dropped on Iraq?

">$?$?$?$?

Posted by: Bruce | July 28, 2009 12:01 PM

Lance, the reason so many Democrats are against this plan is because they are buckling under the pressure of insurance company lobbyists. They are all gutless wimps who fear any real change that might actually fix our hopelessly broken system.

The problem with our current employer-based health care system is that not everyone has the ability to work. Also, many do not have jobs that provide health care. I have two family members who fit the above descriptions and their ONLY choice is to use the ER as a doctor's office.

We don't need health insurance, we need health care. The insurance companies just make the system more expensive for the un/under-and they make unqualified medical decisions.

CONCERNEDWESTVILLER: US insurance companies routinely deny liver transplants to alcoholics. What's the difference?

60% of bankruptcies are because of hospital bills and 80% if of those people are insured. The insurance companies are the problem. We didn't need them 30 or 40 years ago, then why do we need them now?

We need a health care system like the public school system. The public schools are available to everyone but people can choose to send their kids to private schools at their own discretion. What is wrong with that system? The schools aren't all perfect, but at least everyone can get an education who needs it. It's a lot more choice than we have now. I currently have no choice at all. I have to use the health care plan that my employer chooses for me. Our premiums have gone up double digits every year for as long as I can remember and it looks like they are going up 30% next year alone.

Every other civilized nation in the world provides health care for every citizen. These stories about month-long waits and denied coverage are mostly baloney propaganda. (read this from snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/canada.asp)