The WHO rank the USA at 37th for health care.

Ha, ha, ha...isn't it funny how people from all over the world are busting their asses to get their medical care in the nation that is 37TH !

All the wealthy Saudi oil sheikhs with all the money to burn don't bother going to nation # 6, # 17, # 25 or # 36...they come to nation # 37 !

What a crack up.

The world really appreciates all those wonderful pharmaceuticals developed in Norway, Belgium, Syria, Zimbabwe and Cuba.

Well, Walrus, I'm guessing that the WHO is measuring access to health care by the population overall, not level of scientific development. Please correct me if I turn out to be wrong.

Doc Washboard,

I don't really care what the "WHO" uses in their silly bureaucratic baloney.

The point is, everyone wants to live in the USA, and the USA has the best health care in the world---that's why the Saudi sheikhs all come here for medical care.

Just why do you suppose it is that medical technology and pharmaceuticals happen to emanate out of America, and not Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Syria, and Norway ?

Actually, the point is that medical care here is very, very good for those who can afford it, and nonexistent for those who can't.

"Objectively the best?" It depends on what you're measuring.

All those other countries you mentioned probably think they're the best. Look up objective in your dictionary.

Well, "doc," that's a load of horseshit. Emergency rooms, by law, cannot turn people away. So it's quite possible, and it happens every time, that people get very good healthcare when they can't afford it. It's paid for by taxpayers like me, but that's another point.

Now when you're talking about operations and other things that cannot be provided in emergency rooms, there are two choices: you can be given your turn according to what bureaucrats decide, or you can buy your way into line. The latter is the preference of me and any other logical person, because that's something I can control.

You have a doctorate in, what, stupidity? Must be from the same place Krugman and DeLong went to. Pull your head out of your goddamn ass and join the rest of us in reality, ok?

Thanks for making my point for me, Perry: American healthcare is great if you can "buy your way into line." You could probably have done it just as well without the pointless ad hominem attacks, but nobody's perfect.

Please don't lecture me on what healthcare is like for the poor. I've been there. I know exactly what it's all about. Envision the range of conditions that one does not take to an emergency room--and by that, of course, we're talking about nearly everything that one goes to the doctor for--and realize that the poor are, by and large, shut out of that care.

Read the second half of the Carl Schurz quote a few times, and then go change your oil.

Karol, I have not read your blog very much since the election, and recently my husband took the computer that had my favorites marked. He brought me home a laptop, and I'm catching up with you. I love your blog, I will make an effort to comment more often, inspired by a friend/blogger who confessed to reading a lot of blogs and commenting on very few. I am also one of those people. Look out for an e-mail from me, that I'll compose in a bit. You rule.

Perry, it looks like we're hearing from the same people who painfully attempted to convince us a couple weeks ago that socialized medical care is the truth and the light.
Your epic smackdown of them was, well, epic.

Sorry, socialists, but the American medical system provides the best care in the world.

Canada & Britain have a painfully inadequate ratio of specialists and machines per capita, when compared to the USA---and that's not debatable.

Yeah, everyone gets "covered" in Canada & Britain---just good luck keeping yourself alive during the interim when awaiting your appointment 6 months from now with that specialist who is 500 miles away.

I wonder how much these socialized medical systems would cost if they had to depend solely upon their own medical technologies and pharmaceuticals.
In other words, if the socialists weren't using the technologies and drugs which were developed by CAPITALIST investment, how much more expensive would "free" health care cost their societies.

American healthcare is great if you can "buy your way into line." You could probably have done it just as well without the pointless ad hominem attacks, but nobody's perfect.You just don't "get it," do you. If government provides health care, then because health care is a finite resource like any other, there will be only so much to go around -- ergo receiving care is purely up to others' whims.

If health care is paid for by the private sector, then in the end it's up to you. That means you can develop your talents, go to school, whatever it takes, to improve your situation in life and accumulate your own wealth. Then you can afford more things, including better health care.

When the 15,000 elderly died so tragically in France, it was because of government mandates and government-wrought traditions of vacation. It didn't matter how much money these doomed people could offer, because there weren't enough medical staff at any price. You can take your chances in such a rationing system, for all I care. I, for one, want a capitalist system where money talks. My personal accumulation of money is something I can actually control.

In the end, if people expect to receive everything in exchange for little work, you're going to see the latest failed communist experiment of barely any economic production, because people think others will produce for them. Unfortunately, life isn't quite like the Filipino story of Juan, who stood underneath a guava tree with his mouth open.

Now listen well, you little Canuck dumbfuck: I have no tolerance for your playing the anonymous game. Walrus pegged you exactly as I started to suspect: I mauled you worse than a polar bear would in the previous thread, and now you're back. Once you stop playing this game, I'll be willing to have an evenly tempered discussion with you. Until then, I'll use as much leeway as Karol will give me.
Please don't lecture me on what healthcare is like for the poor. I've been there. I know exactly what it's all about. Envision the range of conditions that one does not take to an emergency room--and by that, of course, we're talking about nearly everything that one goes to the doctor for--and realize that the poor are, by and large, shut out of that care.I wasn't "lecturing" you on anything. Did you actually have a point besides repeating yourself?

Doctors' services are a finite resource, like it or not. You don't like it, of course, but I have to keep driving home this point. If there are no prices that can go up and down according to supply and demand, then like anything else, doctors will be overwhelmed once people go for "free" health care.

Several years ago, I had a very bad ear infection. On a weekday morning, I kept calling around to find any clinic to fit me in. No insurance? No problem: I paid cash. In fact, because I had no insurance, I was far more efficient, economically speaking, because I was paying for precisely the quantity of health care that I was consuming. When people pay less in insurance premiums than the actual, total health care expenses, they're encouraged to keep doing that.
Read the second half of the Carl Schurz quote a few times, and then go change your oil.Carl who? What the hell are you talking about, or are you hallucinating again and babbling to the polar bears?

Shorter Walrus:

"Silly billy! Don't you know that no treatment at all is better than treatment you have to wait for or travel to receive?"

Now listen well, you little Canuck dumbfuck: I have no tolerance for your playing the anonymous game. Walrus pegged you exactly as I started to suspect: I mauled you worse than a polar bear would in the previous thread, and now you're back. Once you stop playing this game, I'll be willing to have an evenly tempered discussion with you.

What the heck are you talking about? Since when are Californians "canucks?" I've never interacted with you before, so how could you have "mauled" me in another thread?

What game are you talking about?

You're acting kind of nutty, buddy.

Also: if you don't know who Carl Schurz is, or if you're too lazy to find out what he said, you probably shouldn't be commenting on this thread. It's the topic of the whole thing.

Doc Washboard,

Your "silly boy" wisecracks are amusing.
It must be those harsh winter months, eh ?

As Perry smacked you across the head with the fact, it'd actually do you some good to study Economics 101.

There's no such thing as an infinite supply of a product or service, including healthcare.
The government cannot provide infinite healthcare services to people---they have to ration it---and they do so by limiting access to it.
That is why in Canada & Britain, there is a staggeringly low ratio of specialists & machines per capita, as compared to the USA.

But don't let those facts get in the way of your tantrum.

American capitalist investment is responsible for so much of medical technology and pharmaceuticals.
When will the socialists finally step up and make a contribution ?

It must be those harsh winter months, eh ?

???

The government cannot provide infinite healthcare services to people---they have to ration it---and they do so by limiting access to it.

And you want access limited to you and those like you. I get it, I get it.

The time has come for you to stop propping up the "unlimited health care" straw man. The only people in this thread who have discussed the concept of unlimited access by all to health care are you guys.

You want to ration health care by limiting it to those with the ability to pay for it; I suggested rationing it by giving limited access to all people.

With my approach, you and I get aced out of some health care; with your approach, you keep full access, but the working poor get aced out of most or all health care. In both cases, somebody takes a hit. I understand that you want to take no hit at all. You don't need to keep beating that dead horse.

They are different approaches, but one is not objectively better than the other for society as a whole--and that's what this thread is about: is the United States objectively better in all ways than every other country?

Yes, the United States is objectively better in all ways than every other country. Any other country, in fact. Try traveling around, Doc, and you'll hear that from the natives of other countries.

Yes, the United States is objectively better in all ways than every other country. Any other country, in fact. Try traveling around, Doc, and you'll hear that from the natives of other countries.

Really.

What about not dealing with nutso fundamentalist Christians?

A Swedish scientist responds to amazing alternate history of the universe he found at the Creation Museum:

"I'm very curious and fascinated," Stefan Bengtson, a professor of paleozoology at the Swedish Museum of Natural History, said before the visit, "because we have little of that kind of thing in Sweden."

A society not dominated by fundies? That's practically worth the price of admission right there.

Doc Washboard,

Seriously, Canuck, give us a call when you discover reality. To quote Jon Bon Jovi, "You Give Canada a Bad Name."

You're disingenously conflating "health care" with "health insurance."
People without insurance still get health CARE in America.
And a good percentage of Americans without insurance CHOOSE not to pay for it---that's why they don't have it.

I don't know how you went from trying to defend socialized medicine to a rant against Christians in Sweden...I just guess Christians appear on that left-wing checklist of public enemies, eh ?
But I imagine you don't believe Islamic Jihadists are your enemy---am I right ?

Instead of rationing of health care for some of the people, you want rationing of health care for ALL of the people.
Wow, that's reallly brilliant.

Next thing we know, you'll be telling us that public education in America works just fine, and that teachers and administrators don't need to be held accountable for their failures.

Walrus' default position, if you don't agree with him you're a Islamic jihadist. Sad.

Doc thinks America is a nation that is "dominated by fundies." He may not be from Canada, but he sure doesn't know much about the U.S.A.

"Walrus' default position, if you don't agree with him you're a Islamic jihadist. Sad.

Posted by: bryan at July 7, 2009 03:56 AM"
-----------------

bryan always comes blazing out of the woodwork whenever someone criticizes Islamic Jihadism.

But actually, bryan, you've revealed your reading & interpretive skills are horrible---or you're just intentionally disingenous.

I n-e-v-e-r referred to Doc Washboard as a Jihadist---what I did was ask him if he believes Jihadists are his enemy.
And the reason I asked him is because he went on a rant against non-violent Americans he says are "nutso fundamentalist Christians" whom he mocks for believing in creationism.

I just wonder if Doc Washboard is angry at the Islamic Jihadists who murder, beat, whip, stone, burn, and destroy people who do not submit to their religion.

Walrus:

I'm almost interested in who you think I am, what with all the "Canuck" stuff, but I'm not quite interested enough to actually ask.

I don't know how you went from trying to defend [leaving many Americans without access to health care] to a rant against [the public educational system]...I just guess [teachers] appear on that [right]-wing checklist of public enemies, eh ?

I dislike nutso fundamentalists of all religions equally, by the way.

Sorry Doc, that won't be enough. You evil al-q lover.

Sorry Doc, that won't be enough. You evil al-q lover.

"Dumbfuck Canuck" al-q lover, please. Get it right.

To our continually cowardly anonymous Canuck: I need add very little to Walrus' reply, which you couldn't rebut at all. So his points stand. Stop playing your idiotic little game, ok? We know who you are from the previous thread. Your transparency is pathetic.

Look at what's happened in Massachusetts with "universal" coverage: the longest waiting time for a doctor in all the U.S. happens to be in Boston. People respond to incentives, and when it's "free" or "we're paying for it whether we use it or not," people are going to consume the resource.

Take the example I've mentioned here before, a mover I once heard say to his friend, "If you've got the coverage, you might as well use it." He had just finished bragging about setting up three appointments in one day, even though he really didn't need them. It was the end of the year, and he still had some dollars to use up.

What's even worse is that the private coverage my family enjoys will disappear. It is a fact that the proposed government insurance will not only drive private insurers out of business, it's intentionally designed to do just that. You don't need to be an insider to know this; you just need to pay attention to the news and understand the motives. What's going to happen is that the catastrophic plan we have will become too expensive and/or too regulated for UHC to offer, and like everyone else we'll be "rationed" health care.

I make no excuses whatsoever for liking that "money talks." When my wife's recent insect bite got infected, we got an appointment that very morning. Our usual doctor was busy, but his partner could fit us in. And why not, considering we were paying cash.

Finally, whether or not I'm on something called a vacation, I have no time to do your homework for you. There's no "Carl Schurz" mentioned in this thread, so state your position plainly. What the fuck are you talking about, you goddamn idiot?

Oh, and if you don't like Christians in this country, then by all means, move to Saudi Arabia where they can't legally practice in the open. I dare ya, I double-dare ya, motherfucker.

And bryan, Walrus made two very good points. The anonymous Canuck is so focused on "fundamentalist Christians" and likely doesn't believe Jihadists are his enemy. You know, those Christians are such dangerous types who crash planes into skyscrapers, cut off people's hands for stealing, and give young girls in marriage to dirty old men.

What Walrus actually said was, "Next thing we know, you'll be telling us that public education in America works just fine, and that teachers and administrators don't need to be held accountable for their failures." Do either of you brain-dead understand his point?

"And you want access limited to you and those like you. I get it, I get it."

Oh, and one final note to the anonymous cowardly Canuck: if by "you and those like you" you mean people who actually pay for what they receive, you would be correct. But you clearly aren't intelligent enough to have meant it that way, or to understand it.

Perry:

I'm weary of sitting here while you work out your tiny-penis issues, lard lad. You're going to have to find someone else to play Big Internet Tough Guy with. Good luck with that inferiority complex, buddy.

Later.

Nice retort. Did you ever make it past third grade, or am I giving you too much credit?

When you develop enough intellect to hang out with me and other adults, feel free to come back and show your face. Meanwhile, go paint a target on yourself and go to Gaza.

Cya, scrub.