Who would have guessed this?

As far as I know Chavez is able to travel just about anywhere, he might not trust another country or two but he`s free to travel or seek medical care.
We do have a lot of people that die either in accidents or murders but that also happens most anywhere, we just have more auto deaths because we have more roads & cars. It would also be on the other hand that we have far more elderly living without much quality of life & being kept alive by medication & the wonders of science until the money runs out.

I came across this article and thought it made sense and could add to the conversation. Read the whole thing, the last couple of paragraphs have to do with the lifespan study. Warning it was written by a conservative. Lisa

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... mas-sowell

First time I ever read anything from that man where he wasn`t outwardly blasting the liberals for everything. He brought up some good points but one cannot compare the timeline of mid industrial revolution to present day when we have very little industry left & what we have has replaced man with machine. Between what modern technology & computers have eliminated & population growth there is simply no comparison IMO. Same goes for H.C. & Ins. if you have it your fine if you don`t your forgotten, taking going to a E.R. or walk in clinics aside the average wait to see a doctor in the U.S. is not as fast as most think.

Sowell makes a valid point that "Talking points trump reality in political discussions of many other issues". In other words, don't believe much of anything your politicians say without independently verifying it. How many of us needed to be reminded of THAT? But when it came to the specifics about health care, he cherry-picked his examples to give a false picture of how well the systems work in other countries. I suppose we could call that a lie, but let's be nice and just say that, for Sowell, talking points trump reality.

Did we read different articles?

Because I think we came to totally different conclusions as to what Sowell is saying.

I've never heard him say anything other than smaller, limited government is best and it's not government's role to provide you with everything.

If he is "cherry picking", he is using the "pro government" sides arguments and then pointing out how they aren't true.

rberq wrote:... But when it came to the specifics about health care, he cherry-picked his examples to give a false picture of how well the systems work in other countries. I suppose we could call that a lie, but let's be nice and just say that, for Sowell, talking points trump reality.

No, he doesn't - he has nothing to gain from doing that. You don't become a national syndicated columnist without checking out your facts; not to do so would result in multiple lawsuits. How about you providing some data backing up the claim that he is lying? No, the truth is that all socialized medical systems have resulted in increased costs, longer wait times and rationing. Everyone and their uncle is moving away from it because its unsustainable. The data is has been documented in numerous postings here and is readily available on the internet. It's just that some folks refuse to see the truth for whatever reason. That's ok, to each his own but don't be surprised when the truth jumps up and bites you on the butt. I predict that will be around 1 Jan 2014 if Obamacare isn't repealed. Lisa

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... ax-burden/ Just another conservative viewpoint.

lowfog01 wrote:You don't become a national syndicated columnist without checking out your facts; not to do so would result in multiple lawsuits.

Eh????? Who sues syndicated columnists for inaccuracy?

lowfog01 wrote:How about you providing some data backing up the claim that he is lying?

For a different point of view, that does not rely on Internet blogs, read "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care" by T.R. Reid. The book compares health insurance and delivery of care (most of it private but regulated) in the US, Canada, France, Britain, Japan, India, and a few other countries. I know "Fairer" in the title is not part of your philosophy; but "Better" and "Cheaper" might interest you.

So... This article seems to imply that the amount of money spent is the same whether it's through taxes or out of someone's pocket - six of one, half a dozen of the other, it's all the same in the long run. As far as I can see this article says nothing about the quality of care received or who has the final say in how the money is spent. Those are two important issues, don't you think? Why would you give that authority to someone else? Lisa

lowfog01 wrote:No, he doesn't - he has nothing to gain from doing that. You don't become a national syndicated columnist without checking out your facts

It's been working for Paul Krugman so far....

rberq wrote:

lowfog01 wrote:You don't become a national syndicated columnist without checking out your facts; not to do so would result in multiple lawsuits.

Eh????? Who sues syndicated columnists for inaccuracy?

lowfog01 wrote:How about you providing some data backing up the claim that he is lying?

For a different point of view, that does not rely on Internet blogs, read "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care" by T.R. Reid. The book compares health insurance and delivery of care (most of it private but regulated) in the US, Canada, France, Britain, Japan, India, and a few other countries. I know "Fairer" in the title is not part of your philosophy; but "Better" and "Cheaper" might interest you.

You lose me at "fair". There is no way to legislate "fairness". It's theft from the word go. As soon as you take something from someone to provide for another, you just committed theft and I don't care if you use an iron hand in a velvet glove. It's still theft.

There has never been a case where government provided "cheaper and better" anything. In the history of the country. There's a REASON why "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" is a joke.

Don`t know what kind of experiences you have had Lisa but it seems my Ins. carrier has a lot of say in the quality of health care & how the money is spent. If I were a rich man I wouldn`t even have health insurance, my current ins. wants me to go to their doctors rather than the one I`ve been seeing. Now they are refusing to pay for my script because its not from their approved doctor & for this I`m paying monthly.

lowfog01 wrote:So... This article seems to imply that the amount of money spent is the same whether it's through taxes or out of someone's pocket - six of one, half a dozen of the other, it's all the same in the long run.

That is only part of what it says. The other part is, that in the US the TOTAL bill as a percentage of GDP is double the other countries. So it is not ALL the same in the long run.

lowfog01 wrote:As far as I can see this article says nothing about the quality of care received or who has the final say in how the money is spent. Those are two important issues, don't you think?

Yes, those are important. Read the book I recommended, then decide for yourself. If you only ever read opinions that reinforce what you already believe, you are not giving other ideas a fair shake. Incidentally, the author sought help for a bum shoulder in every country he visited, USA included, but the only place he got any useful and common-sense treatment was in India where he had to pay for it all himself.

rberq wrote: Read the book I recommended, then decide for yourself. If you only ever read opinions that reinforce what you already believe, you are not giving other ideas a fair shake. Incidentally, the author sought help for a bum shoulder in every country he visited, USA included, but the only place he got any useful and common-sense treatment was in India where he had to pay for it all himself.

What a bunch of liberal hooey! It's typical liberal positioning that if I don't agree with your point of view even after I've done extensive research on the subject from a variety sources that I'm misinformed and "being unfair." Shall I put on my Tin Foil hat and tell you what's coming next since I still don't agree with you? Cue eerie music...I predict that you will start to fill your postings with snarky little comments that belittle my intelligence and my position on the subject; been there, done that - give it your best shot.

So what if the percentage of GDP - Gross Domestic Product - is more here. I'd except it to be in a capitalist economy. Health care and it's supporting infrastructure is big business.GDP is a reflection of our standard of living and we enjoy the highest standard of living in the world; we demand better care. That's why we are the leaders in medical innovations and research. That's why our cancer survival rate is so much higher then the rest of the world. People may not head here for non life threatening procedures, but they all have one designation in mind for life threatening diseases.

rberq wrote:but the only place he got any useful and common-sense treatment was in India where he had to pay for it all himself.

I bet it it didn't occur to you that you have hit on one of the things conservatives say is the way to truly reform health care in this country. Take the middle man (i.e., the government) out of the equation, let the free market control health care as it should and prices will fall without jeopardizing our standard of health care or our standard of living. OMG - what a concept! Lisa

The United States has now fallen to 51st among the worlds nations in average life expectancy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tancy.html