Obama said he was opposed to a single pay system because the American people are accustomed to a for profit system involving private insurance companies. Accustomed my ass - we are held hostage by this immoral system that feeds insatiably upon the sick and elderly. The criminals are the politicians who suppress any meaningful legislation while raking in money and/or favors from special interests. Obama is the one who needs to make some tough decisions that do not favor private companies over the people. I wouldn't hold my breath though.
ShirleyGoodnessanMercy
· 7 months ago
Anyone who has seen "Sicko" will know that France is LIGHT YEARS ahead of America in providing health care. The French system is so good most Americans are left with their mouths hanging open in disbelief when they learn about it. We Americans have been SO screwed over by the Republicans who have kept us from progressing for 50+ years.
ndtovent
· 7 months ago
Good post! Conservatives (and even some centrists) don't realize that many of us who have health insurance under the privatized system is total managed care (socialized medicine, in other words, for which we pay out the ass). Many of those who have a little more freedom of choice with their high quality ppo's pay even higher premiums for that freedom... And the coverage gets lower every year as the premiums skyrocket, but the well off/wealthy don't care because they can afford to pay any gaps they might encounter. It's just amazing to me why we haven't changed this broken down system we call health care in the u.s.
PattyP
· 7 months ago
Don't forget the Pasteur Institute was also the first to isolate LAV (later HIV), the virus that causes AIDS, not to mention create a blood test to determine who was infected. But the US government couldn't bear the thought of allowing the French to get credit along with the accompanying valuable patents, so they dicked them around and instead awarded the patent to a U.S. doctor. After a few years of wrangling, the US and French teams agreed to share credit even though the credit rightfully belonged entirely to the French. Oh yeah, while all that bickering was going on, thousands more people were infected and died of the virus. But they were just teh gays so who cares about them when there's Amurkin moneys to be fought for. :-/
Antinous
· 7 months ago
But if we change our health care delivery system how would our corrupt masters fill their pockets. Surely you realize the privileged bastards we have sent to Washington must be treated as the kings they want to be. Bow everyone and shut the hell up, don't you realize we servants aren't suppose to talk amongst ourselves.
willnycetparis
· 7 months ago
ChrisInP, Though I agree with and enjoy all of your posts, I'm constantly having to "americanize" them and translate your intention. You've been out of the US too long! Your sarcasm has long come across as being snarky, and maybe that's a fine line to a Parisian (it certainly is in my experience), but it's pretty obvious to Americans. Example: "Dare I say, communism!" Wait, what? Funny? No. Referential? Kinda, if you're 52. Do you sound like a translation of Balzac? Yeah. Work it out, ok? I love this blog and enjoy your posts.
Mark217
· 7 months ago
Chris, votre écriture est très clair et plein d'humour. Ne changez pas!
Tysalpha
· 7 months ago
For most people, if we could get over the idea of "socialized" medicine and just do it, they'd probably recieve just as good, if not better, care. And have less payments, less hastles -- and nowdays employers would be better off, too.
The resistance must come from the old rugged individualist part of our culture. It seems to be the same holdouts as on other social safety nets -- i.e. people thinking "my life may suck but I don't want you to get anything for free that I don't get." When in reality we'd all be better off -- individually and collectively -- with the change.
shell
· 7 months ago
Can someone explain to me why everyone on teevee -- and I do mean EVERYONE -- says that a change to "socialized medicine" will be expensive? Even the liberals in favor of this type of change say it will cost Americans money. I would like to know how.
1. With no American HAVING to go to the ER unless it was a real emergency -- wouldn't that save big bucks?
2. With businesses not having to provide health care to employees, wouldn't that save them money?
I truly don't GET it. It seems that whatever hike in taxes it would cost would more than be made up for in less money Americans have to pay in health care premiums and costs at the doctor/hospital.
The only problem that I can see is finding jobs for the health insurance workers. (Forget the CEOs and bigwigs -- they have enough money already.) I mean the grunt workers. But -- you don't see America still driving horse and buggies because they felt sorry for horseshoers. Why is it that today, we just can't put the tobacco workers and health insurance workers out of business?
Steve_in_CNJ
· 7 months ago
non-profit insurance still needs employees.
shell
· 7 months ago
Good point.
Mark217
· 7 months ago
The "Conservatives For Patients' Rights" organization is running television ads advocating rejection of President Obama's health care initiative, saying Congress "shouldn't be messing with your health care." The sad irony is that many of the American people viewing these television ads are totally uninsured. They have absolutely NO health care for Congress or anyone else to "mess with." And Richard Scott, ousted CEO of Columbia/HCA, now in charge of this "conservative group" Conservatives For Patient Rights, was in charge of a for-profit health company which bilked the taxpayers for millions of dollars via illegitimate and criminal overbilling. Doesn't Mr. Scott realize the stupidity of these ads which are playing to 40+ million Americans without any health insurance? http://www.cpractionfund.org/ Typical "conservative" -- totally out of touch with reality. Does Mr. Scott expect 40+ million uninsured Americans to contact Congress to oppose their own future access to universal heath care? What a dumb ass!
LeeRn
· 7 months ago
I think we should slow down and take a look at things first, there have been too many mistakes made. Seems like so much is going through so fast.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 7 months ago
we slowed down in 1993. remember?
Mark217
· 7 months ago
We've not only slowed down, we've been going backwards for the last eight years. Full steam ahead!
ezpz
· 7 months ago
My comment to Congress via M O petition:
"It's high time to stop using the term 'socialized medicine' as a pejorative or as something to be feared, though I do understand that those who profit from illness and the medical care of others are indeed afraid of losing these HUGE profits. This term needs to be strongly rejected.
What IS egregious and something to be feared and repulsed by is that people (other than sincere health care professionals) are in the 'business' of profiting from this care which should be the right of every individual, not just those who can afford it (a number becoming smaller by the day).
To paraphrase some principles of the Hippocratic Oath:
'for the betterment of wo/man kind' and 'first do no harm'.
Alas, it seems that greed has superseded these principles.
How tragic this is in a country whose many citizens 'preach' Christianity in a holier than thou way while simultaneously being the complete antithesis of WWJD."
OM
· 7 months ago
I saw someone yesterday saying, "We don't need to learn from the French how to supply health care." And the word French was said with the biggest scorn. Like the word French was the beginning and the end of the argument.
Man, can these people be any less relevant?
onion
· 7 months ago
Hey the health care in Costa Rica is pretty good.
ProgressiveTroll
· 7 months ago
France just keeps looking better and better to me.
LeeRn
· 7 months ago
I think you get what what you pay for. Cheap health care, cheap service. When I worked in Detroit, people from Canada came over and paid CASH to get open heart surgery. They were too afraid to wait, they were time-bombs for a heart attack. They came from India, sponsored by people here, to have surgery because this is one of the best in the world. Don't be too quick to think that our system is all bad. ANYONE can walk into an ER and get treated. I took care of a Hispanic worker from Mexico that had had a heart attack. His home was in Mexico, we are in Michigan. Who paid for that? We need to work on the system between the hospital and home. Preventative measures. Be careful, the plan the government is looking at now just may reduce your chances of getting healthcare. Especially for the elderly. Benefits of treatment and cost of that treatment will be dictated by the Fed. They will decide who gets what. Is that what we really want? Can we find a better solution? And remember, the grass is always greener on the other side. There are no easy answers, just difficult choices.
Jonathan Justice
· 7 months ago
Now that I have got past the snark and the thread has developed a bit, it is time to say that while the benefits of the better universal health care systems we can see around the world are so awesomely appealing that we should be happy to pay even more of our GDP to get them than we do for the mess we have, the bottom line is that none of the other systems even begin to cost as much. Ours is so far out of line that before the euro got so far ahead of the dollar, we were already spending more tax money per capita on the publicly funded slices of our health care system than the French were for their entire system. Then we created Medicare Part D to funnel even more tax dollars to pharmaceutical manufacturers.
It is more than a little ironic that Wal-Mart's prescription service, what we might call "WalHIP" ( a nod to the Ontario Health Insurance Program) finally did the kind of negotiating that our government was sure would endanger the quality of American medications.
LeeRn
· 7 months ago
Dear Mr. Justice, With all do respect, but what is Medicare and Medicaid (that takes up all of those tax dollars) but Government run health care? Our system needs a revamp, but I dread too much government control. I fear rationing of those health care dollars even more than they are now.
All Comments
Though I agree with and enjoy all of your posts, I'm constantly having to "americanize" them and translate your intention. You've been out of the US too long! Your sarcasm has long come across as being snarky, and maybe that's a fine line to a Parisian (it certainly is in my experience), but it's pretty obvious to Americans. Example: "Dare I say, communism!" Wait, what? Funny? No. Referential? Kinda, if you're 52. Do you sound like a translation of Balzac? Yeah.
Work it out, ok? I love this blog and enjoy your posts.
The resistance must come from the old rugged individualist part of our culture. It seems to be the same holdouts as on other social safety nets -- i.e. people thinking "my life may suck but I don't want you to get anything for free that I don't get." When in reality we'd all be better off -- individually and collectively -- with the change.
1. With no American HAVING to go to the ER unless it was a real emergency -- wouldn't that save big bucks?
2. With businesses not having to provide health care to employees, wouldn't that save them money?
I truly don't GET it. It seems that whatever hike in taxes it would cost would more than be made up for in less money Americans have to pay in health care premiums and costs at the doctor/hospital.
The only problem that I can see is finding jobs for the health insurance workers. (Forget the CEOs and bigwigs -- they have enough money already.) I mean the grunt workers. But -- you don't see America still driving horse and buggies because they felt sorry for horseshoers. Why is it that today, we just can't put the tobacco workers and health insurance workers out of business?
"It's high time to stop using the term 'socialized medicine' as a pejorative or as something to be feared, though I do understand that those who profit from illness and the medical care of others are indeed afraid of losing these HUGE profits. This term needs to be strongly rejected.
What IS egregious and something to be feared and repulsed by is that people (other than sincere health care professionals) are in the 'business' of profiting from this care which should be the right of every individual, not just those who can afford it (a number becoming smaller by the day).
To paraphrase some principles of the Hippocratic Oath:
'for the betterment of wo/man kind' and 'first do no harm'.
Alas, it seems that greed has superseded these principles.
How tragic this is in a country whose many citizens 'preach' Christianity in a holier than thou way while simultaneously being the complete antithesis of WWJD."
Man, can these people be any less relevant?
It is more than a little ironic that Wal-Mart's prescription service, what we might call "WalHIP" ( a nod to the Ontario Health Insurance Program) finally did the kind of negotiating that our government was sure would endanger the quality of American medications.