Obamacare

[GaryC 7]

The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States

Outline of Talk Given To The Association of State Green Parties, Moodus, Connecticut on June 4, 1999

By John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D.

1. Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.

2. Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.

* Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

* Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

* Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

* Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

* Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

* Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

3. Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive

* Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

* Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

* Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits

* Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.

* Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money

4. Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services

* Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US

* Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.

* Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)

* Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.

* Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%

* Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.

5. Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice

* Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits

* Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer

* Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind

* Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.

* Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved

6. Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public

* Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.

* Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)

* Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country

7. Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the most efficient

* Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.

* Fact Two: The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more

* Fact Three: Health care costs in the United States grew more in the United States under managed care in 1990 to 1996 than any other industrialized nation with single payer universal health care

* Fact Four: The quality of health care in the US has deteriorated under managed care. Access problems have increased. The number of uninsured has dramatically increased (increase of 10 million to 43.4 million from 1989 to 1996, increase of 2.4% from 1989 to 1996- 16% in 1996 and increasing each year).

* Fact Five: The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the lowest of any industrialized nation.

* Fact Six: 80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed care has caused quality of care to be compromised

* Conclusion: For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks.

8. Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?

Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care

9. What you can do about this through your state Green Party

* Work to pass a single payer, universal health care bill or referendum in your state. State level bills and referenda will be most effective because a federal health care system might in fact be too bureaucratic, and because it is not politically realistic at this time.

* Bills or referendum must be written by and supported by health care providers for the legislature to take them seriously. It is thus imperative to form an alliance with provider groups. The most effective provider group to go through is Physicians For A National Health Program which has chapters in every state (see hand out for partial listing of contact people). A number of states already have organized single payer efforts: Massachusetts, California, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, and Maryland. Join with them.

* A first step is to contact state representatives from PNHP and offer to join with them to write and support a bill bringing single payer, universal health care to your state if this has not already been done. The Connecticut and Massachusetts Bills can be used as models to make this task easier (email us at riverbnd@javanet.com and we will send you copies of the bills). A referendum is another way to go, in which case the California referendum can be used as a model.

* A second step is to contact state legislators and find a group who are willing to sponsor such a bill.

* A third step is to create a coalition of groups to work together to support and publicize this work, or to try to bring together existing groups to work together on this project. Labor unions, progressive democratic groups, Medicare/Senior Advocacy groups, the Labor Party, the Reform Party, UHCAN, existing health care advocacy groups, and state health care provider groups are all imporatnt to work with and get to join such a coalition. The state medical society and state hospital association are critical to work with in order to get any legislation passed. Try to get them to work with you to design a new model for health care delivery. They will be particularly concerned about who will control the system, and be very mistrustful of government. A public trust model with participation by providers, hospitals, business, the public and government is like to be much more acceptable to them than a pure government system. Emphasize doing away with managed care, and get them to try and work with you to find other ways to control costs (necessary to convince politicians) such as quality assurance standards, which will also protect them from malpractice

* A fourth step is to give talks in support of your bill or referendum where ever possible. Senior groups, medical staffs, church groups, high school assemblies, and labor unions are particularly good sources. Excellent materials including slides, a chart book and videos are available through PNHP.

* A fifth step is to raise money through fund raisers, contributions and benefits held by entertainers. Benefits are particularly useful in bringing out people who you can inform about single payer, universal health care and your efforts.

* A sixth step is to develop media access. The creation of videos that can be shown on local cable access TV stations is very effective. Newspaper articles, letters to the editor, and articles by the press are critical. Radio interviews and radio talk shows are important.

* Getting the public to write and call their state representatives in support of a proposed bill is critical, as is coordinating testimony at a public hearing.

* Because the data about single payer universal health care are so revealing of the problems with corporate America, and because the US citizenry is so concerned and dissatisfied with our health care system these efforts may yield surprisingly positive results and be helpful in establishing the Green Party in the US as a party of the people, by the people and for the people.

We would be happy to help you. Contact us by email at riverbnd@javanet.com, by phone at 860-354-1822, or by mail at 88 Cherniske Road, New Milford, CT 06776

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for...ited_states.htm

Excellent post with something to say.

It still isn't what Obama says he wants. What you get will bear no resembelence to this at all. The utopia of health care you all want just isn't going to happen. This is just pie in the sky hope and couldn't work in the US.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Medicine by bureaucrats is what we have today. More so than any other nation. The farther we get away from what we have today, the better.

[GaryC 7]

The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care

By David Hogberg (about)

A single-payer health care system is one in which a single-entity -- the government -- collects almost all of the revenue for and pays almost all of the bills for the health care system. In most single-payer systems only a small percentage of health care expenses are paid for with private funds. Countries that have a single-payer system include Australia, Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Single-payer is popular among the political left in the United States. Leftists have emitted tons of propaganda in favor of a single-payer system, much of which has fossilized into myth.

Here are some of the more prominent single-payer myths:

Myth No. 1: Everyone has access to health care a single-payer system.

Myth No. 2: Claims of rationing are exaggerated.

Myth No. 3: A single-payer system would save money on administrative costs.

Myth No. 4: Single-payer will provide fair and quality care for everyone.

Myth No. 5: Single-payer leaves medical decisions to patients & doctors.

Myth No. 6: Single-payer systems achieve better health outcomes.

Myth No. 7: The U.S. systems also engages in rationing.

Myth No. 8: A single-payer system will not hamper medical research.

Myth No. 9: Single-payer will save money as patients seek care earlier.

Myth No. 10: The free market in health care has failed in the U.S.

Myth No. 1: Everyone has access to health care a single-payer system.

Everyone in a single-payer system has health insurance, not necessarily health care.

While the government in a single-payer system will pay for everyone's health care, it limits the access to health care. In a single-payer system, citizens often believe that "the government" is paying for their health care. When people perceive that someone else is paying for something, they tend to over-use it. In a single-payer health care system, people over-use health care. This puts strain on government health care budgets, and to contain costs governments must ration care.

Governments in a single-payer system ration care using waiting lists for surgery and diagnostic procedures and by canceling surgeries. As the Canadian Supreme Court said upon ruling unconstitutional a Quebec law that banned private health care, "access to a waiting list is not access to health care." [back to Top]

Myth No. 2: Claims of rationing are exaggerated.

Jonathan Cohn, author of Sick, wrote that the "stories about [rationing in] Canada are wildly exaggerated." Yet advocates of single-payer never say what they mean by "exaggerated."

The fact is that people often suffering great pain and anxiety while they spend months on a waiting list for surgery. Others spend months waiting for a surgery, only to have it cancelled, after which they will spend even more time waiting for another surgery. Sometimes people even die while on the waiting list.

Media in foreign nations are full of stories about people suffer while on a waiting list. In Canada, Diane Gorsuch twice had heart surgery cancelled; she suffered a fatal heart attack before her third surgery. In Great Britain, Mavis Skeet had her cancer surgery cancelled four times before her cancer was determined to have become inoperable. In Australia, eight-year-old Kyle Inglis has lost 50 percent of his hearing while waiting nearly 11 months for an operation to remove a tumor in his ear. Kyle is one of over 1,000 children waiting over 600 days for ear, nose and throat surgery in Warnbro, a suburb in Western Australia.

These are not mere anecdotes. Much academic literature has examined the impact of waiting lists on health. A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that 50 people died while on a wait list for cardiac catheterization in Ontario. A study of Swedish patients on a wait list for heart surgery found that the "risk of death increases significantly with waiting time." In a 2000 article in the journal Clinical Oncology, British researchers studying 29 lung cancer patients waiting for treatment further found that about 20 percent "of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list." [back to Top]

Myth No. 3: A single-payer system would save money on administrative costs.

Single-payer advocates often claim that the U.S. private sector health care system is wasteful, spending far more on administrative costs than do government-run single-payer systems. According to single-payer advocates David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, "Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286.0 billion in 2003, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001."

Yet comparisons of private sector administrative costs with those of government are misleading. Many government administrative expenses are excluded in such comparisons, such as what it costs employers and government to collect the taxes needed to fund the single-payer system, and the salaries of politicians and their staff members who set government health-care policy (the salary costs of executives and boards of directors who set company policy are included in private sector administrative costs).

But even if the U.S. would save money on administrative costs by switching to a single-payer system, the savings would prove temporary. The main cause of rising health care costs is not administrative costs, but over-use of health care. A single-payer system would not solve that problem. Indeed, it would make it worse. [back to Top]

Myth No. 4: Single-payer will provide fair and quality care for everyone.

Leftist Dave Zweifel claims that the U.S. "could make the system so much more fair by enacting a national single-payer health plan." Jonathan Cohn, when asked why he had faith that the government could run the health care system for all when it didn't do it very well for the poor, responded, "My answer is that they do it, and do it well, abroad."

Well, no they don't. According to Canada's Fraser Institute:

... a profusion of research reveals that cardiovascular surgery queues are routinely jumped by the famous and politically-connected, that suburban and rural residents confront barriers to access not encountered by their urban counterparts, and that low-income Canadians have less access to specialists, particularly cardiovascular ones, are less likely to utilize diagnostic imaging, and have lower cardiovascular and cancer survival rates than their higher-income neighbours.

It isn't much better in Great Britain. Take a look at the Saga 'Good Hospital Guide' for British hospitals. Compare the ones in Inner London, which tend to be in wealthier areas, to the ones in Outer London, which tend to be in poorer areas. You'll notice that in general, the ones in Inner London have more doctors and nurses per bed, shorter wait times for MRIs and hip replacements, and lower mortality ratios. [back to Top]

Myth No. 5: A single-payer system will leave medical decisions to a patients and his or her doctor.

According to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a group pushing for a single-payer system in the U.S.:

There is a myth that, with national health insurance, the government will be making the medical decisions. But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the UK and Spain that have socialized medicine.

Yet PNHP seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth. Here is how PNHP addresses the question of how to keep doctors from doing too many procedures in a single-payer system:

[Doing too many procedures] is a problem in systems that reimburse physicians on a fee-for-service basis. In today's health system, another problem is physicians doing too little for patients. So the real question is, "how do we discourage both overcare and undercare"? One approach is to compare physicians' use of tests and procedures to their peers with similar patients. A physician who is "off the curve" will stand out. Another way is to set spending targets for each specialty. This encourages doctors to be prudent stewards and to make sure their colleagues are as well, because any doctor doing unnecessary procedures will be taking money away from other physicians in the same specialty.

In practice what this will mean is medical decisions will be left up to you and your doctor as long as your doctor isn't doing too many (or too few) procedures and is within a spending target.

The truth is that single-payer systems often interfere with treatment decisions. For example, most single-payer systems have bureaucracies that delay the approval of new drugs, preventing patients from using them. Alice Mahon, a former member of the British parliament, needed the drug Lucentis to slow her macular degeneration. Because of delays due to the National Health Service not yet having approved Lucentis at the time of her diagnosis, Mahon lost much of the sight in her left eye.

In 1999, Canadian patient Daniel Smith, a cystic fibrosis sufferer, and his doctors agreed that he needed a lung transplant. But his surgery was cancelled by administrators because an open hospital bed could not be found.

So much for medical decisions being left to patients and their doctors. [back to Top]

Myth No. 6: Single-payer systems achieve better health outcomes.

Most single-payer advocates point to life expectancy and infant mortality as evidence that single-payer systems produce better health outcomes than the U.S. And, indeed, the U.S. has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than many nations with a single-payer system.

The problem is that life expectancy and infant mortality tell us very little about the quality of a health care system. Life expectancy is determined by a host of factors over which a health care system has little control, such as genetics, crime rate, gross domestic product per capita, diet, sanitation, and literacy rate.

The primary reason is that the U.S. has lower life expectancy is that we are ethnically a far more diverse nation than most other industrialized nations. Factors associated with different ethnic backgrounds -- culture, diet, etc. -- can have a substantial impact on life expectancy.

A good deal of the lower life expectancy rate in the U.S. is accounted for by the difference in life expectancy of African-Americans versus other populations in the United States. Life expectancy for African-Americans is about 72.3 years, while for whites it is about 77.7 years. What accounts for the difference? Numerous scholars have investigated this question. The most prevalent explanations are differences in income and personal risk factors. For example, one study found that about one-third of the difference between white and African-American life expectancies in the United States was accounted for by income; another third was accounted for by personal risk factors such as obesity, blood pressure, alcohol intake, diabetes, cholesterol concentration, and smoking and the final third was due to unexplained factors.

Infant mortality is also impacted by many of the same factors that affect life expectancy -- genetics, GDP per capita, diet, etc. -- all of which are factors beyond the control of a health care system. Another factor that makes U.S. infant mortality rates higher than other nations is that we have far more pregnant women living alone; in other nations pregnant women are more likely to be either be married or living with a partner. Pregnant women in such households are more likely to receive prenatal care than pregnant women living on their own.

Perhaps the biggest drawback of infant mortality is that it is measured too inconsistently across nations to be a useful measure. Under United Nations' guidelines, countries are supposed to count any infant showing any sign of life as a "live birth." While the United States follows that guideline, many other nations do not. For example, Switzerland does not count any infant born measuring less than 12 inches, while France and Belgium do not count any infant born prior to 26 weeks. In short, many other nations exclude many high-risk infants from their infant mortality statistics, making their infant mortality numbers look better than they really are.

In areas where a health care system does have an impact, such as treating disease, the U.S. outperforms single-payer systems. For example, the U.S. has a higher five-year survival rate for victims of heart attacks than Canada, due to the fact that we do more bypass surgeries and angioplasties in the U.S. Hospitals in the U.S. also commit fewer errors than hospitals in countries with single-payer systems like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. [back to Top]

Myth No. 7: The U.S. systems also engages in rationing - 18,000 people die each year due to lack of insurance.

According to PNHP, "Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care you get it, if you can't, you don't. A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don't have health insurance."

The Institute of Medicine study purporting to show that 18,000 people die each year due to a lack of health insurance is actually a "meta-analysis," a study that summarizes the results of other studies. Yet many of the studies the Institute relied on have some rather odd results. One study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that women with private insurance were more likely to survive breast cancer than those uninsured. However, data in the study also showed that those who were uninsured had a higher survival rate than women covered by Medicaid. This suggests that factors other than health insurance, like education and income, were at play in determining breast cancer survival.

Furthermore, everyone in the U.S. can get care regardless of income. In 1986 the U.S. Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. This requires emergency rooms to treat any person who shows up seeking medical treatment, regardless of their ability to pay. [back to Top]

Myth No. 8: A single-payer system will not hamper medical research.

The PNHP claims:

Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries that have national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The new treatment to cure juvenile diabetics by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada.

While it is true that medical research will not "disappear," it will surely decline. Consider what has happened to pharmaceutical research in single-payer systems, where the government imposes price controls on prescription drugs. A study (PDF) conducted by U.S. Commerce Department found that drug price controls in other nations reduced annual investment in pharmaceuticals by $5-8 billion, resulting in 3 to 4 fewer drugs being launched each year. The Boston Consulting Group found (PDF) an even bigger effect of price controls, showing a loss of $17-22 billion annually in pharmaceutical research resulting in the loss of 10 to 13 new drug launches.

In a free market, producers make a profit by providing services that consumers find useful. Profits also act as a signal to research - research dollars go toward services that make more profit. This is desirable because services that make more profit are the ones that consumers find most useful. Medical services that make profit -- i.e., the ones that patients find most useful -- will attract more research dollars.

In a single-payer system, government sets the prices for medical services. Since government is not good at setting prices, it inevitably over-pays for some services. Research dollars will go not necessarily toward the services that patients find most useful but toward the services that government over-pays since those will be the ones that will be most profitable. [back to Top]

Myth No. 9: Single-payer will save money because patients will seek care earlier (since they will no longer face financial barriers to health care) when it is easier and more affordable to treat diseases.

This assumes that patients will be able to get access to health care easily in a single-payer system. But as nations with single-payer have shown, even the most basic health care, like routine doctors visits, are rationed. According to a report by Statistics Canada:

Despite the fact that most individuals had a regular family doctor, almost one in five individuals of those who required routine care experienced difficulties accessing care. The rates were significantly lower in Saskatchewan (12%), Alberta (13%) and British Columbia (12%), and significantly higher in Newfoundland and Labrador (20%) and Quebec (19%).

The top two barriers to receiving routine or on-going care were difficulties getting an appointment, and long waits for an appointment.

Overall, 16% of Canadians who had required health information or advice indicated that they had experienced difficulties accessing care. The rates were significantly lower in Saskatchewan (13%) and Alberta (13%), and significantly higher in Ontario (18%).

Seeking care earlier will make little difference if patients have trouble getting a routine appointment with a doctor. [back to Top]

Myth No. 10: The free market in health care has failed in the U.S.

What has failed in the U.S. is government micromanagement of the health care system. Over the past 40 years government's role in the health care system has continually expanded, from programs like Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP, to regulations like HIPPA and COBRA. Like most government interventions, it has only made the problem worse.

The fact is we do not have a free market in health care in the U.S. Ask yourself: How many markets in the U.S. do you get a tax break for buying a product, but only if you buy it through your employer, as we do with health insurance? In how many markets are you prohibited from purchasing a product out of state, as we are with health insurance? In how many markets are employers prohibited from providing bonuses to employees for improving quality and productivity, as hospitals are prevented from doing with doctors? If government policy inhibited other markets that way, those markets would be dysfunctional too.

The solution to our health care problems is to reduce the role of government, not increase it by switching to a single-payer system.

http://www.freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths.php

[HAL 9000 96]

Medicine by bureaucrats is what we have today. More so than any other nation. The farther we get away from what we have today, the better.

Yet its what people that support a ridiculous approach to marketing medicine precisely want.

It is not expected for Obama to fix everything the Republicans have screwed up in our government and in our economy. That still doesn't preclude his attempt to do so when the time comes.

[GaryC 7]

Medicine by bureaucrats is what we have today. More so than any other nation. The farther we get away from what we have today, the better.

Yet its what people that support a ridiculous approach to marketing medicine precisely want.

It is not expected for Obama to fix everything the Republicans have screwed up in our government and in our economy. That still doesn't preclude his attempt to do so when the time comes.

The US government invented bureaucrats. If anyone thinks turning health care over to the government will eleminate them isn't thinking.

[HAL 9000 96]

Medicine by bureaucrats is what we have today. More so than any other nation. The farther we get away from what we have today, the better.

Yet its what people that support a ridiculous approach to marketing medicine precisely want.

It is not expected for Obama to fix everything the Republicans have screwed up in our government and in our economy. That still doesn't preclude his attempt to do so when the time comes.

The US government invented bureaucrats. If anyone thinks turning health care over to the government will eleminate them isn't thinking.

The US Government what?

Gary, the US government should be afraid of its citizens, not its corporate beaurocrats.

[GaryC 7]

Medicine by bureaucrats is what we have today. More so than any other nation. The farther we get away from what we have today, the better.

Yet its what people that support a ridiculous approach to marketing medicine precisely want.

It is not expected for Obama to fix everything the Republicans have screwed up in our government and in our economy. That still doesn't preclude his attempt to do so when the time comes.

The US government invented bureaucrats. If anyone thinks turning health care over to the government will eleminate them isn't thinking.

The US Government what?

Gary, the US government should be afraid of its citizens, not its corporate beaurocrats.

The US Government what? Huh?

I trust business a lot more than the government regardless of who runs it.

[HAL 9000 96]

Medicine by bureaucrats is what we have today. More so than any other nation. The farther we get away from what we have today, the better.

Yet its what people that support a ridiculous approach to marketing medicine precisely want.

It is not expected for Obama to fix everything the Republicans have screwed up in our government and in our economy. That still doesn't preclude his attempt to do so when the time comes.

The US government invented bureaucrats. If anyone thinks turning health care over to the government will eleminate them isn't thinking.

The US Government what?

Gary, the US government should be afraid of its citizens, not its corporate beaurocrats.

The US Government what? Huh?

I trust business a lot more than the government regardless of who runs it.

And it shows. In that case, make it your mission in life to turn the government into a corporation. Oh wait... under the Republicans, that's kind of what it is. Lucky for the most of us, that is absolutely the opposite of what the American people- not just Gary, want.

And are you implying that the US Government should NOT be concerned about what its citizens want? Bravo.

[GaryC 7]

Medicine by bureaucrats is what we have today. More so than any other nation. The farther we get away from what we have today, the better.

Yet its what people that support a ridiculous approach to marketing medicine precisely want.

It is not expected for Obama to fix everything the Republicans have screwed up in our government and in our economy. That still doesn't preclude his attempt to do so when the time comes.

The US government invented bureaucrats. If anyone thinks turning health care over to the government will eleminate them isn't thinking.

The US Government what?

Gary, the US government should be afraid of its citizens, not its corporate beaurocrats.

The US Government what? Huh?

I trust business a lot more than the government regardless of who runs it.

And it shows. In that case, make it your mission in life to turn the government into a corporation. Oh wait... under the Republicans, that's kind of what it is. Lucky for the most of us, that is absolutely the opposite of what the American people- not just Gary, want.

And are you implying that the US Government should NOT be concerned about what its citizens want? Bravo.

No, and you know that. Nice try at twisting again. It's what your good at.

BTW, a majority of Americans don't want government run health care. We are about evenly split with no majority wanting one or the other. This is from a Harvard study.

Q2. So far as you understand the phrase, do you think that if we had socialized medicine in this country that the health care system would be better or worse than what we have now?

45% Better

39% Worse

4% About the same (volunteer)

12% Don't know/Refused

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-rel...vard_Harris.pdf

Edited June 18, 2008 by GaryC

[HAL 9000 96]

Medicine by bureaucrats is what we have today. More so than any other nation. The farther we get away from what we have today, the better.

Yet its what people that support a ridiculous approach to marketing medicine precisely want.

It is not expected for Obama to fix everything the Republicans have screwed up in our government and in our economy. That still doesn't preclude his attempt to do so when the time comes.

The US government invented bureaucrats. If anyone thinks turning health care over to the government will eleminate them isn't thinking.

The US Government what?

Gary, the US government should be afraid of its citizens, not its corporate beaurocrats.

The US Government what? Huh?

I trust business a lot more than the government regardless of who runs it.

And it shows. In that case, make it your mission in life to turn the government into a corporation. Oh wait... under the Republicans, that's kind of what it is. Lucky for the most of us, that is absolutely the opposite of what the American people- not just Gary, want.

And are you implying that the US Government should NOT be concerned about what its citizens want? Bravo.

No, and you know that. Nice try at twisting again. It's what your good at.

BTW, a majority of Americans don't want government run health care. We are about evenly split with no majority wanting one or the other. This is from a Harvard study.

Q2. So far as you understand the phrase, do you think that if we had socialized medicine in this country that the health care system would be better or worse than what we have now?

45% Better

39% Worse

4% About the same (volunteer)

12% Don't know/Refused

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-rel...vard_Harris.pdf

Polling... ahhh...

45% is not a majority over 39% ?

I mean, if you want to cite a Harvard study or a Timbutku U study, 45 > 39... unless we're talking about some other kind of sense here...

[GaryC 7]

Medicine by bureaucrats is what we have today. More so than any other nation. The farther we get away from what we have today, the better.

Yet its what people that support a ridiculous approach to marketing medicine precisely want.

It is not expected for Obama to fix everything the Republicans have screwed up in our government and in our economy. That still doesn't preclude his attempt to do so when the time comes.

The US government invented bureaucrats. If anyone thinks turning health care over to the government will eleminate them isn't thinking.

The US Government what?

Gary, the US government should be afraid of its citizens, not its corporate beaurocrats.

The US Government what? Huh?

I trust business a lot more than the government regardless of who runs it.

And it shows. In that case, make it your mission in life to turn the government into a corporation. Oh wait... under the Republicans, that's kind of what it is. Lucky for the most of us, that is absolutely the opposite of what the American people- not just Gary, want.

And are you implying that the US Government should NOT be concerned about what its citizens want? Bravo.

No, and you know that. Nice try at twisting again. It's what your good at.

BTW, a majority of Americans don't want government run health care. We are about evenly split with no majority wanting one or the other. This is from a Harvard study.

Q2. So far as you understand the phrase, do you think that if we had socialized medicine in this country that the health care system would be better or worse than what we have now?

45% Better

39% Worse

4% About the same (volunteer)

12% Don't know/Refused

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-rel...vard_Harris.pdf

Polling... ahhh...

45% is not a majority over 39% ?

I mean, if you want to cite a Harvard study or a Timbutku U study, 45 > 39... unless we're talking about some other kind of sense here...

A majority is 50%+, this is a plurality. I'm surprised at you Mav.

[GaryC 7]

majority n

1.The status of having attained the age of adulthood as set by law.

2.More than fifty percent of a total.

Edited June 18, 2008 by GaryC

[HAL 9000 96]

Medicine by bureaucrats is what we have today. More so than any other nation. The farther we get away from what we have today, the better.

Yet its what people that support a ridiculous approach to marketing medicine precisely want.

It is not expected for Obama to fix everything the Republicans have screwed up in our government and in our economy. That still doesn't preclude his attempt to do so when the time comes.

The US government invented bureaucrats. If anyone thinks turning health care over to the government will eleminate them isn't thinking.

The US Government what?

Gary, the US government should be afraid of its citizens, not its corporate beaurocrats.

The US Government what? Huh?

I trust business a lot more than the government regardless of who runs it.

And it shows. In that case, make it your mission in life to turn the government into a corporation. Oh wait... under the Republicans, that's kind of what it is. Lucky for the most of us, that is absolutely the opposite of what the American people- not just Gary, want.

And are you implying that the US Government should NOT be concerned about what its citizens want? Bravo.

No, and you know that. Nice try at twisting again. It's what your good at.

BTW, a majority of Americans don't want government run health care. We are about evenly split with no majority wanting one or the other. This is from a Harvard study.

Q2. So far as you understand the phrase, do you think that if we had socialized medicine in this country that the health care system would be better or worse than what we have now?

45% Better

39% Worse

4% About the same (volunteer)

12% Don't know/Refused

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-rel...vard_Harris.pdf

Polling... ahhh...

45% is not a majority over 39% ?

I mean, if you want to cite a Harvard study or a Timbutku U study, 45 > 39... unless we're talking about some other kind of sense here...

A majority is 50%+, this is a plurality. I'm surprised at you Mav.

Very good. So... again... 45% is not a majority over 39% ???

(btw, your definition is of a simple, subset majority compared to 100%)

I will accept your semantics as well. But thanks for your surprise. Even I can wikipedia.

45% is not significant enough when all other subsets are exclusionary of its opposite being plural?

[mawilson 2,133]

Harvard study = "liberal elite"! Who cares?

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Harvard study = "liberal elite"! Who cares?

You forgot to use all bolding.