Well let me help you.

Good service at Walter Reed. Decision to privatize. Service declines. Conservative government, dedicated to the voodoo of privitization does nothing to prevent decline for 5 years. Scandal results and everybody admits it has to be fixed with more taxpayer money. Taxpayers bail out failed privatization policy.


The same series of events, mutatis mutandis, occured in airline secuirty deregulation, Enron, Savings and Loan deregulation. When will they ever learn. Privatization is a failure, ultimately bailed out by taxpayers, just so a few corporate cronies of conservatives can make a big profit.

A couple of things. The decline did not occur overnight after the center was "privatized", it was gradual, as I cited several posts ago. Second there is very little conservative about this government.

Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE for these problems to occur as a result of what you choose to call privatization. There simply was not enough time and the problems were discovered YEARS before this "privatization" occured.

CP

Did you miss the amlord post above. I notice you did not respond. The company had been doing the job for six weeks! So ya lets blame them and all the “corporate” bad guys for all the ills at WR. REAL good logic – NOT.

And you apparently know squat about the airline industry. Service is better today and consumers save about 5 BILLION a year.

No, I specifically said it declined over 5 years of neglect by a voodoo believing conservative administration that thinks only privatization can do anything. Like you Bush beleives that the government can do nothing, and he's proved it.

And what privatization took place in 2005? You're saying that privatization caused a problem that began years ago but haven't proven that privatization has occured BEFORE the decline in conditions.

Like me? Gee, I didn't realize that I believe the gov't can do nothing. I guess I learned something new about myself.

CP

The decision to privatize took place many years ago. The declined followed inevitably thereafter. You can keep avoiding this inconvenient fact, but it doesn't change anything. Walter Reed was a well run facility until privatization began. Then is declined into becoming the sordid shameful shell of its former self.

That's what happens when you privatize.

When, when did this privatization occur? All of your articles refer to 2005 when vets were charged fees for SOME formerly "free" treatments...That is NOT privatization. Where is this privatization?
Fact? I am not the only one who is confused at what exactly this "fact" is.

First you claim a private firm hired six weeks before the conditions were discovered were at fault, now you're telling me that "privatization" had occured years before 2005. When?

CP

Maybe you should read the thread before pontificating.

I linked an article from Krugman. Read it and it will answer all your questions and you'll finally understand how privatization destroyed Walter Reed. I just can't keep repeating it for your benefit.

I read it! TWICE! There is NOTHING in it that proves that. The only actual FACT in the entire article is that some troops were forced to pay for services sometimes. That is NOT privatization. If a private firm ran the hospital with NO government interaction or oversight THEN it would be privatization. Oy vey.

CP

Then read this one, which I also posted:



http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/0...walter_reed.php

"The process dragged on for several years, and finally it was determined that the bid by federal civilian employees at Walter Reed was the better one. However, that decision was overturned by the Army Audit Agency, which was upheld by the GAO on a technicality. This allowed IAP to get a five-year, $120 million contract.

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has been gathering evidence that the prospect of outsourcing (and likely job cuts) had a detrimental effect on morale and efficiency at Walter Reed. That idea is not just theory. Last September, Walter Reed Garrison Commander Peter Garibaldi sent an internal memorandum to his superiors warning that substantial numbers of skilled workers were leaving because of the impending takeover by IAP. "

And that article has been debunked by many here already. The hospital was being run by the military. Yes, workers from a private firm did take over several staff positions, that is a fact, it is also a fact that Walter Reed Medical center was not a private entity, it was run by and responsible to the gov't, which is why gov't officials were fired and gov't officials are under fire for the embarassing conditions therein.

CP

Assuming this information is reliable, I don't believe it proves your thesis.

1. If IAP was awarded a preferential contract, then it isn't privatization that has failed, but a corrupt/negligent contract award system that has succeeded.

2. The detrimental affects on morale/efficiency at Walter Reed can be entirely explained by the prospect of firings and poor management as well as IAP being unfairly awarded the contract. You don't need to roll-out the "failure of privatization" to explain this.

Putting on my libertarian hat, I believe that awarding contracts to government "feeder companies" like IAP is not really privatization at all. I see IAP as but an extension of the government; able to service a contract under a limited liability regime. This means the government can "wash its hands" of some of its responsibility when things go wrong.

1. Should health care for veterans be "re-nationalized" given the utter failure of private companies to provide decent health care to our vets?"
Privatization works for everything, yet we want to leave important decisions, like health care and education, to inefficient government monopolies. This makes no sense. You expect 60 kinds of breakfast cereal, cheap, deregulated flights to your vacation spot, yet "the government" is expected to provide effective, efficient health care for veterans. Give them a blue cross card and blow up Walter Reed, and we'd save billions.

Landru, your tompaine link does not appear to be working. And Krugman's a quack, just FYI.

While I don't agree with Landru's thesis, I must disagree, privatisation does NOT work for everything. As I stated a couple pages ago, it works very well in many (most even) industries but does not work in others, and this idea that 'everything must be privatised just because it should be privatised' is as illogical as the other extreme of mass nationalisation.

The government certainly has the capacity to provide effective, efficient health care, there is no reason whatsoever why not. Unless the US is somehow less capable than the many other nations which have effective centralised medicince. Nationalised industries are not inherently inefficient, and more than privatised inustries are inherently corrupt. Yes, nationalisation can (and has) lent itself to ineficiency, but that is because of the manner and structure of governance.

As I said last post, for every nationalisation horror story (BT in the early 1980s in the UK) there is a privatisation horror story (Royal mail today, in the UK).

I'll take your word on the royal mail, which was in every way superior to the US mail. Having endured the NHS in Britian for a time, I would respectfully disagree that this is evidence of effective government health care at work. We don't have enough space for me to detail what is wrong with that fiasco. To American readers, imagine getting your health care at the DMV. It's that bad, and I have the scars to prove it.

Honestly, right after I got rid of the department of education, I'd get the US government out of the health care business completely. Not because "everything" must be privatized, but because the important things should be.

I already asked Ted this but now I'll ask you, carlitoswhey. If privatization is so good, then why aren't you calling for a privatized military force or transportation system or sanitation or police force or fire department? If you really believe in the "panacea of privatization" principle, then let me know how you're reconciling this.

Actually, the US military has privatized a good deal of its function, such as transportation and infrastucture, and I support that. Anyone with a septic tank and a well knows that private sanitation works just fine. Denmark privatized the fire service years ago, Fark I believe is the company, and it runs much better than the municipal services. Really, a 100% volunteer fire department isn't that different from privatizing, and there are lots of examples of that model working here in the states. Private ownership of the Chicago skyway fixed the potholes for the first time in my life this past year, and now they even take I-Pass. In Chicago's south side, working-class residents have now joined the super-rich and purchased their own security service in Marquette Park, replacing the ineffective police service. Until now, only the rich could afford effective private police forces.

Seems unfair to me that the rich get private service of whatever type they like, and the rest of us are forced to make do with government mediocrity.

The question I asked is: if you would support a completely private military force, specifically, spin off, say, the Marines or the Army, into private enterprises negotiating for military force projection contracts in an international market? Would you support the police department being a pay-for-use service where enforcement of the law is provided by the highest bidder? How about offering a futures market in our strategic military assets, such as military bases abroad or our nuclear stockpile? In other words, do you really believe in privatization as the source of all good things or do you cherry-pick programs to privatize just because you don't like paying for it through taxes?

Funny, the US has the only privatized health care system in the world, and it is not only the most expensive but the most inefficient, not to mention leaving 45 million Americans without health care insurance.

The profit motive and providing health care services simply doesn't mix. And Walter Reed is one more glaring example of that.

The mantra of "government inefficiency" (in light of Enron, the Savings and Loan debacle, etc) is pure rhetoric without argument.

Respectfully, that is the question you are asking now; the question you asked did not have the word 'completely' in it - check and see

I never said that privatization was the 'source of all good things' and there is no need for me to believe that every government service simply must be privatized or I'm a hypocrite. Clearly, the common defense (especially of the homeland) is written into the Constitution and should be provided by the feds. Privatization of force projection, I'm willing to consider. If the French foreign legion were private would it work any differently really?

Transportation, I'm willing to argue, but privatization has some good to offer there. If you can find me any authorization for federal government health care in the Constitution kindly post it, but "common welfare" doesn't cut it for me given the ninth amendment. And don't give me any crap about liking that I pay for it through taxes, because under our current system, all of the examples I gave are being paid for by taxpayers who also pay for the government service through taxes. We pay twice, and that's the unfair part.

I am in the middle on this one

1) There is no way you can call our medical system "private" or "capitalist" or "free market"- it is just not done that way- protectionism, licensing, subsidies, yadda yadda - it doesn't even closely resemble anything 'free market"- so, what you do when you "privatize" medicine is switch from the goverment run system with some oversite, to some CEOs with no accountability at all, until the blowup enevitably comes.

2) Privatization is NOT bad in and of itself, and, true conservative types, nt hte neo-con silliness, can provide real world examples of GOOD privatization- communication systems, road building etc- very, very good competition, true open markets, true capitalist market.


CW- bail outs for failed private enterprise is real though- problem is- lobbyists pay off lawmakers to keep these corrupt systems afloat instead of letting them fail- when we are talking airlines for instance- instead of letting them fail after thier corrupt book keeping style kept them so marginal- 9/11 just tipped themn over the edge.

Airline deregulation has been and still is a nighmare- and one reason we have possibly the worst western world domestic airlines on the planet- we just plain suck. Just like or medical system- we are just the worst, no western nation can compare to our suck-age

CW- you are of a mind with me on this- I just have more experiance in the "what really happens next" instead of the "that wasn't SUPPOSED to happen".

Some common sense, logical, look at what works vs ideology is a great tool in these instances- why does all of Europe pay less for care per person, with EVERYTHING figured in,and get better service, than the US?

Europe, for the most part- still has goverment employees doing most of the infrastructure work- and it shows- they suck at day to day infrastructure upkeep, red tape, laziness in the workers etc- where, our privatized contractor road builders have to be competitive bid- and our stuff gets done better and faster- but they would blow a gasket as a society if there was an attempt to privatize some very, very dinosaur like government agencies.

Just gotta look at something that works- and go with it- if it don't work, then change it.

Walter Reed is a great exampl of everything that can go wrong with a private agency doing public work- and we need to learn and not do it again!

.


Oh no? Doctors don’t work for the government – last time I checked – nor do hospitals – where not ONE piece of equipment is produced by the government. Same for hospitals _(thank god – except VA). All drug companies and medical employees are “private”. Hospitals are “businesses” as are insurance companies that pay the bills.

What is NOT private is Medicare/Medicaid and that is a disaster!! Fraud mismanagement, out of control disaster that is taking down the whole medical system. Carlitoswhey is right. I have never spoken to anyone in Brittan who liked their system and most dislike the Canadian system as well.

We could go back to the good old days before Medicare when poor sick people were left to die on the streets. But we tried that and didn't like it much.

Medicare has no more fraud than private insurance coverage, and Medicare cost less since it doesn't try to squeeze a profit out of the transaction. Further, private insurance company's have a huge financial motive to deny coverage and claims. That's why there are so many costly bad faith lawsuits agaisnt them, and many if not most are winners. Medicare avoids all that nonsense since its purpose is to provide coverage not to deny.

In short privatizing medical care is the most perverse and costly way to provide it. That's why every other advanced country in the world has dumped the private model after years of failure.

Yes, I wasn't exact in my wording; thus, allowing you to answer the question you wanted to be asked instead of the one I was asking. My bad .


Again, I should have been more precise in my words. What you said was this: "Privatization works for everything..."


So, you seem to be saying that privatization is not appropriate for some things but appropriate for others. In other words, you are not following a principle but instead following a standard.

This is the key difference. When I read "privatization works for everything", it appears that you have a principle which you are applying. But, when I question this principle, instead you caveat that some things are appropriately privatized and some things are not.

Now, after all this deconstruction, let me just ask you straight-out. If health care can be run more efficiently and fairly as a non-private enterprise, then wouldn't it meet your standards?


I can't find any place in the Constitution which provides for:
1. a national road system
2. a government-run military force (it just says provide for the defense; doesn't need to be government run)
3. a national reservoir system
4. a power distribution infrastructure
5. a flood-control system along our major waterways
6. law-enforcement bodies (like the FBI, ATF, DEA)
7. spy agencies (like the CIA, NSA)
I could go on and on....

The point being: it isn't the principle of privatization you're following here. Instead, you just have some sort of objection to a national health care system. This is fine as far as I'm concerned. All I'm asking is that you stop rolling out the "privatization principle" when making your arguments -- it's simply not true.

Fiction of course. The Canadian system consistently priovides a better standard of health care across the board than that in the United States, higher survival rates for almost every kind of cancer (except breast cancer, oddly) lower rate of post-operative infections, higher rate of survival for heart surgury, longer lifespan, lower infant mortality rate... need I continue? This debate has ben gobe over a hundred times. Ask 100 canadians if they think we should privatise health care, and I'm guessing maybe 3 or 4 will say yes, the rest an emphatic no. Please do us all the favour of not completely inventing things regarding the systems of other countries to suit your arguments.

As for the UK, there both you and CW are correct, overall the NHS is not excellent, but then you both ignore the reasons why: A conservatibe Thatcher government refused to sufficiently fund the NHS for almost a decade, farming elemts of it off to provate firms many of whom fell apart or were caught in high profile corruption scandals. Of course it degenerated in quality after that.

And the canadian health care system isn't even the best around. Try scandinavia or France. Obviously socialised medicine CAN work, to pretend otherwise is nonsense.


Oh, and carlitoeswhey: the Royal Mail WAS excellent, until they privatised it, then it simply disintigrated. Privatisation is best for some industries, nationalisation for others. Claiming ALL must be one extreme or the other is nonsensical.

.

We had this discussion before. Invent???? Ya Riiiiiight! Statistics don’t tell the whole (of the Canadian system) story esp. when compared to the US which has to deal with millions of illegal aliens and over burdened emergency care – where as in Canada you have the ID!!!! No ID no service – a very good idea. My Canadian friends do not say the system is “bad” just insufficient like most “government” systems. Long waits for specialists etc……. And big taxes to support the system which does NOT cover prescription drugs!
Canada's universal health plan does not cover certain services. Non-cosmetic dental care is covered for children up to the age of fourteen. Prescription drugs are not covered, and optometry is only covered in some provinces. Visits to many specialists may require an additional user fee

In Canada, every citizen has coverage, but access can still be a problem. Based on 2003 data from the Canadian Community Health Survey[1], an estimated 1.2 million Canadians do not have a regular doctor because they "cannot find" one. - 4% of the population.

21 percent of Canadian hospital administrators admitted that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50 year old woman. Less than one percent of American administrators made this claim. according to the same survey, fifty percent of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts stated that it would take over six months for a sixty-five year old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery

Canadian Health Care In Crisis

"It's like somebody's telling you that you can buy this car, and you've paid for the car, but you can't have it right now," said Jane Pelton. Rather than leave daughter Emily in pain and a knee brace, the Ottawa family opted to pay $3,300 for arthroscopic surgery at a private clinic in Vancouver, with no help from the government.

"Every day we're paying for health care, yet when we go to access it, it's just not there," said Pelton.

The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from province to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent of every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
The system is going broke, says the federation, which campaigns for tax reform and private enterprise in health care.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/...html?cmp=EM8705

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(CCNMatthews - June 28, 2006) - Two new reports released today provide evidence that waiting for health care has a quantifiable price tag and that wait time benchmarks must be set for all major diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical procedures.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/canwait3.html

A 59-year-old Ontario woman on disability for a heart-related problem is complaining of age discrimination after she was rejected by a local doctor advertising for new patients.
Edith Paulus had already endured two fruitless years of searching for a family physician in Barrie -- a city designated under Ontario's ministry of health as being under-serviced for family doctors -- when she found Dr. Derek Nesdoly's ad in a local community newspaper.
The general practitioner was seeking new patients. But when Paulus called Nesdoly's office in Midhurst, a community just west of Barrie, she was told the doctor wasn't accepting patients older than 55.
"I cried a lot, really, because it really hit me," Paulus told CTV News. "Oh my God, I am old, not important."
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/canage.html

http://www.isuma.net/v01n01/contandr/contandr_e.shtml

Yes, invent.

I'm sorry Ted, I'm not going to debate Canadian helth care with you; its an issue you know nothing about, your 'evidence' is drawn from far-right wing American websites, like 'libertypages' in their forum 'the problem with socialised medicine'. It's absurd. I will say this: the Canadian health care system is not perfect, nor did I ever claim that it is. But the universal 'statistics' you chose to completely discount show that it is in every measurable way better than the US system, and by the way, Canada has plenty of illegal immigration as well. Argyuing general statistics are irrelevant, then arguing by a single extreme case is obviously and blatantly intellectually dishonest.

The point here is NOT canada vs. US or anything like it, the point is that nationalised industries CAN and DO work, as I also stated (and you also ignored) Canada doesn't even have the best nationalised health care system in the world: Scandinavia, Czech republic and France both do slightly better, and are both better than the US system in terms of measurable output (you know, those stats you pretended didn't exist) and COST LESS per capita than the American system. And you can't pretend France doesn't have an uillegal immigration problem as bad or worse than the US...

Add to that: it is off topic, and even if I did engage, you would just cut-and-run from most of my points as anyways and refuse to answer any questions or admit your plentiful factual errors. (so, how's Iraq, the "cheapest war the US has ever engaged in", going there Ted? (guffaw))


Some on the far right scream for universal privatisation just for the sake of universal privatisation, and that is absurd. many industries run better when private, some run better when public. As usual, the extremeists in this debate (on both sides) are simply wrong.

Vermillion- one of the main problem's we have in this country is the right wings invention of things that don't exist- like somehow Canada's health care system is worse than ours- quite laughable really- but it is the reason we have problems like Walter Reed- heck there are more poeple the "working poor" without health care than the entire population of Canada (there are 45 million poeple in American with NO health care- not one single Canadian can even claim that!) SOME health care is better than 0- the usual screaming fiction of the right

Ted- there is 0 emprical measurable way that the US has ANYWHERE NEAR as good as health care of ANY western country- period- we have to go to like Sri Lanka to find a system worse than ours- or darn, is Sri Lanka still kicking our butt too?

Ever flown on a non- US carrier? I would rather fly on ANY western country Carrier other than the US- our just plain sucks- their hybird of public/private carrier works WAY better than ours.

Even your Drs "being private is a lie- that is what the AMA keeps from happening- they artificially keep the numbers low, by NOT allowing qualified candidates to go to Medical school- in order to keep thier numbers down- no supply and demand to it WHATSOEVER- in fact- our system of MDs can factually be called the most succesful Socialist system on earth- for the Drs- not for the country- because they can arbitrarily determine how many Drs get to go to school- in Europe- you have the grades, you can go, and, for many years- France had surplus of Drs- that is why "Drs without borders" is so heavily staffed from France- Drs are a dime a dozen there.

And THAT is why the REALITY of privatization and the FANTASY of how it should be just can't jive- first off, we have a bunch of ideological sloganeers running the system- that would be strike one- because it is impossible for an ideologue to adjust to the reality- had they looked at the first IAP thing and said "oops, okay- not this one for privatization until perhaps a better company can come along" instead of "hey- ANY privatization is good, even if this company is not good, it is better than the way it was run"- which, of course- was clearly a mistake.

IT IS THE RUSH TO PRVATIZATION that really kills privatization sometimes "we will privatize this within a year" instead of "we will keep revisting this issue until we find a company that fits here, until then, any company that comes along has to do a better job with the same amount of LINE staff, for less costs, hidden or otherwise"

It is the careful consideraton that usually gets lost in the ideological ranting that makes privatization so horrible- NOT the privatization itself

since Ted is so wrapped up in how the US medical system is so much superior to Canada or UK (which doesn't even pass the laugh test )- this post is mostly aimed at CW and Leder- who are pretty libertarian -

herein lies the rub and some of the basic conflict of libertarianism and free market and capitalism- the reality vs the ideology- we, as libertarians, sometimes have to step back when our ideology doesn't work- or, even more accurately- when it is executed badly, or in a corrupt manner, that we need to revisit this ideology, and put some checks and balances in place that prevents "privatize at any cost, even when it costs more"- that allows the original question of the thread "failed policy of privatization" - because it is NOT privatization that has neccesarily failed- it is the folks that are corrupt and in charge that have failed us, we need to recognize THAT reality and insure it doesn't happen again.

By what measure? Sure we have people not covered and that is a problem and we have a too high rate of hospital acquired infections – but if you think the disaster that is the UK system is better I disagree and I don’t see how the “government” could do better.



I fly a lot. Not too much on foreign carriers. Sure you get more food on Air Canada – at twice the US price but as for on time, and general comfort the planes are the same for the same runs. Of course the big cross ocean planes of all carriers are more comfortable. I flew before deregulation and the only thing that was “better” was that fewer people flew – the food stunk and on time was worse.




I agree – doctors have too much power and do it specifically to keep their incomes up. Oddly the Canadian doctors who get less per visit make about the same and I could not figure this out – so I asked a Canadian fried and he explained that doctors there schedule far more “visits” Ahhhhh – a trick for every occasion.




Well of course – the people who are in charge are the problem and this is precisely why “public” services work so badly. No competition means that you really don’t need to get “better” at the product or service because you are protected from having to competed with anyone. Certainly some things need to be public – but not many – have any examples of good public services?


And I thought Libertarians followed Milton Friedman? No? Check him out.

Ted, I beg of you, PLEASE pay attention. NOBODY is claiming great things from the NHS, in fact everybody here agrees that it is not doing very well at the moment. Nobody has suggested otherwise. So why do you invent this as an argument? MANY examples of excellent nationalised medical systems have been provided, all of which provide an overall better standard of care than the US. Yet for some reason, you ignore all those examples, arguments and points, and instead invent the claim off the top of your head that people here are saying the NHS is better, when in fact they have repeatedly stated exactly the opposite. What could you have been hoping to prove by making such a statement?



Air Canada is average, I would not say anything better than that. Its prices are in fact slightly CHEAPER than most US carriers on international flights, but more expensive on continental flights.

Thej again, try flying Air France or British Airways or Scandinavian Airline Systems (SAS), and suddenly you understand how amazing Air Flight can be. Or even better the most luxurious and efficient airlines on the Planet, the nationalised Singapore Air or Thai Airways international...




Your 'friend' is wrong, or at least, 15 years out of date. Canadian Doctors actually make about 10-20% less on average than their American counterparts. Inventing patients or fake patient visits is essentially impossible under in the current billing system.

Sure, Cathay Pacific and Singapore and Thai are fantastic, best-in-the-world carriers. But they don't serve a Bloody Caesar like Air Canada! Where is your national pride, man? Air Canada is the best by default, until Clamato finds its way to the asian carriers.

logopohage - good points. In future, I'll endeavor not to generalize that "everything" is better with privatization.

There is not a single nationalized system – including Japan that is not have significant problems and IMO we need to fix our system NOT make it a public one. And frankly even if a system in another country, that is nationalized, is “better” today are we comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges? IMO, since we do not have a singe large nationalized (nonmilitary) “service” in this country that is worth the powder to blow it straight to hell – and I include all RMVs, The Postal Service, Federal Prisons, most state road repair, and more. To imagine that we can just "socialize" out the medical system and its going to be “better” is overly optimistic. Certainly it will be far more costly. I would rather fix the current system before scrapping it.



I agree – I tend to think Air Canada is friendlier than many US carriers with the possible exception of American and JetBlue. I will have to try the bloody Caesar!

Fair enough, but by ignoring the possibility of socialised medicine simply because the far right assumes socialised = evil is absurd. Fix the system, look at ALL the options, look as well at what IS WORKING in many other counries.



Well considering the US has the single most expensive medical systme in dollars spent per capita in the entire first world, your claim that socialising it would 'certainly be more expensive' is somewhat absurd.

The issue here is not whether socialising the US medical system would instantly solve all its problems, of course that is fascile. The issue is why some on the far right refuse to accept the reality that socialised medicine CAN and DOES work better than the current US system, and for LESS MONEY. It is most certainly worth consideration as a solution, rather than the automatic dismissal the US far-right gives it without bothering to find out the first thing about the reality.

Far right??? How about the “majority”.




Absurd on what basis??? How does “socializing” make any service “cheaper” – never has in this country. So we go from an expensive system to one that is very expensive? With bad service.

"Problems with our health care system are leading some to fall prey to proposals calling for a nationalized single-payer health care system like Canada's or Britain's. There are a few things that we might take into consideration before falling for these proposals.
London's Observer (3/3/02) carried a story saying that an "unpublished report shows some patients are now having to wait more than eight months for treatment, during which time many of their cancers become incurable." Another story said, "According to a World Health Organisation report to be published later this year, around 10,000 British people die unnecessarily from cancer each year -- three times as many as are killed on our roads."

The Observer (12/16/01) also reported, "A recent academic study showed National Health Service delays in bowel cancer treatment were so great that, in one in five cases, cancer which was curable at the time of diagnosis had become incurable by the time of treatment."

The story is no better in Canada's national health care system. The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute has a yearly publication titled, "Waiting Your Turn." Its 2006 edition gives waiting times, by treatments, from a person's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist. The shortest waiting time was for oncology (4.9 weeks). The longest waiting time was for orthopedic surgery (40.3 weeks), followed by plastic surgery (35.4 weeks) and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks).

Canadians face significant waiting times for various diagnostics such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound scans. The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.3 weeks, but in Prince Edward Island, it's 9 weeks. A Canadian's median wait for an MRI was 10.3 weeks, but in Newfoundland, patients waited 28 weeks. Finally, the median wait for an ultrasound was 3.8 weeks across Canada, but in Manitoba and Prince Edward Island it was 8 weeks.
Despite the long waiting times Canadians suffer, sometimes resulting in death, under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Regardless of this prohibition, a few black-market clinics service patients who are willing to break the law to get treatment. In British Columbia, for example, Bill 82 provides that a physician can be fined up to $20,000 for accepting fees for surgery. According to a Canada News article, "Shortage of Doctors and Nurses Could Hurt Medicare Reforms" (3/5/03), about 10,000 doctors left Canada during the 1990s.

There's help for some Canadian patients. According to a Canadian Medical Association Journal article, "U.S. Hospitals Use Waiting-List Woes to Woo Canadians" (2/22/2000), "British Columbia patients fed up with sojourns on waiting lists as they await tests or treatment are being wooed by a hospital in Washington state that has begun offering package deals. A second U.S. hospital is also considering marketing its services." One of the attractions is that an MRI, which can take anywhere from 10 to 28 weeks in Canada, can be had in two days at Olympic Memorial Hospital in Port Angeles, Wash. Already, Cleveland is Canada's hip-replacement center.

Some of our politicians hold up the Canadian and British nationalized health care systems as models for us. You can bet that should we ever have such a system, they would exempt themselves from what the rest of us would have to endure.

There's a cure for our health care problems. That cure is not to demand more government but less government. I challenge anyone to identify a problem with health care in America that is not caused or aggravated by federal, state and local governments. And, I challenge anyone to show me people dying on the streets because they don't have health insurance.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterE...p;Comments=true

WOW!!

As a new guy around here I've been browsing around the site and checking out the different forums. However this topic caught my eye because the reasoning behind the questions is so utterly flawed.

Yes, some of the services at Walter Reed have been privatized but I can’t find anywhere in this thread--or on-line--exactly which services were contracted-out or what percentage of all services were contracted-out (however, to be fair, I may have simply missed them).

The source that Landru Guide Us provided doesn’t detail it and the source itself seems less than credible. If you didn’t check it out, here is how the “authors” of this site describe themselves (I’ve added the italics for emphasis):

“em dash: Our founder, editor, and chief sassy-booted badass. Connecting the dots is her forté.

Izzy: Has a "different" perspective on just about everything. She has extensive... she's knowledgeable in... hell, we brought her along for comic relief.

Nathan: Bringing us views from the Latino community and a love of the arts. Also makes good lentil soup.

DCvote: Advocates for a solar panel on every roof, a sense of ethics in every boardroom, and three olives in every martini.

shirah: She doesn't actually want you to bring her the poor, tired, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, but she damn well wants them unpoor, untired, and unhuddled. She wants you to understand the legal system like it was your own home town.
(Thank goodness for “shirah”! Obviously her writings won’t be biased by her own personal views).

Environmentalist: He’s silly enough to believe that clean air, clean water, and access to wild lands are fundamental human rights! He’s stupid enough to think that well-planned communities with sound economies benefit democracy. He’s insane enough to believe that science can be used to the benefit of mankind! ‘Universal Health Care!’ he’s been known to shout on occasion. Fool. Mostly he just bitches. At the very least, he can dish up a killer agave chiffon pie.
(Again, we can expect no bias here! – Dale)

BobB: A troublemaker who believes in fighting injustice at the computer keyboard, at the ballot box, in letters to the editor, and in the streets.

54cermak: We found him riding the Blue Line in Chicago on his way to dig through dusty crates of vinyl records, looking for hidden gems. An unrepentant New Dealer, some would say he was born in the wrong era. They're probably right.

Avila: A New Orlean's native, we can't even keep up with this fiery Pony Express Empress. She blazes through the bulls[ed.], pushing for impeachment, and she won't be happy until everyone has a democracy bond and a copy of Jefferson's manual. Oh, and a pony.

Suskind: A man of words and passions. A fine writer whose soul longs for Justice who appears in his dreams as the Nike of Samothrace with the legs of Cyd Charrise; best of all she's got her head again. He longs for Louise Brooks too, but that's another kind of longing. And, NO, he is not THAT Suskind!”
(Oh, maaaaannnn!!!! - Dale)

Is this what really passes as credible sources? It is from the minds of these “professionals” that you would put forth a topic to debate? Really?

Aside from the source material, the assumption that Walter Reed is so poorly run because of the contracted services is assuming facts not put into evidence. Let us not forget that Walter Reed is still a government run hospital. And as such, is directly responsible for the services provided.

In the private sector, those manufacturing and service industries that do contract out certain services are still responsible for those parts and services that were contracted out. Why is this same standard not applied to government provided health care for our veterans?

1. Should health care for veterans be "re-nationalized" given the utter failure of private companies to provide decent health care to our vets?"

No! The government being involved in it now is ultimately the real problem. Can anyone tell me of a single government-run *agency that is operated effectively, efficiently and on-budget?

I can’t think of one.

So why does Landru Guide Us--or any of the rest of you that believe in socialized health care--think that the government is capable of / or competent enough to be responsible for the effective and efficient health care for every man, woman and child in this country?

The stupidity of this logic is glaring!

2. Will the horror story of the Walter Reed privatization become the impetus for finally bringing the US into the 21st and getting legislation that provides for government financed national health care insurance for all citizens, not just vets?

While I am afraid that socialized health care in this country is a foregone conclusion, I do not think this story will be the “impetus” for socialized medicine. Walter Reed is one of the biggest “non-stories” of the last five years. I, myself, have known for a fact that Veteran’s Hospitals have been a source of shame for this country for the last 30 years (spanning both Democratic and Republican administrations and legislatures).

When I was only 10, my father required double bypass surgery (an experimental procedure at that time). Having served honorably in the Korean War in the Army and then later in the Marines, he was entitled to receive help from our local Veterans Hospital.

He was denied.

The reason?

He was told he was the wrong color.

I kid-you-not.

Today, my 87 year old father-in-law, who served in WWII, still receives assistance from the Veteran’s Hospital. What requires a 30 minute trip to the doctor for me may take him as long as two days.

I kid-you-not.

And while he is retired and lives on a widow’s mite, he still had to “hide” about 25% of his money from the government or have his treatments denied since he has “too much money” (notice I said money and not "income").

And he served with distinction!

In fact, it has been so well known that our Veteran Hospitals are a joke that this very subject was the topic of a major motion picture titled, Article 99, starring Kiefer Sutherland and Ray Liotta back in ’92 (great flick, by the way!).

Now here is the thing that I find so appalling…I can share these things with you just as Ted provided some great examples of why socialized health care doesn’t work with respect to Canada’s health Care, and Liberals will still scream for socialized health care.

Uh, gee, guys I hate to point out the obvious here but Walter Reed is socialized health care. And to quote Landru Guide Us, Walter Reed is a “horror story”.

So please explain to me what the logic is here.

There were some other little gems in here that I just can’t pass up…

“Why is universal health care insurance "socialized medicine"? You apparently can't argue the merits so are stuck using label lieu of arguments. This is how conservatives ‘argue.’“- Landru Guide Us

and almost immediately following this quote…

“…and once again resolve to have the best health system in the world, rather than have 45 millions American, including about 8 million poor kids, essentially without access to health care.” - Landru Guide Us

Sir, it is “socialized medicine” because under threat of force from the government I would have to pay for the health care of other people who cannot or choose not (as many young people do) to pay for their own health care needs.

In addition, you point to “about 8 million poor kids” without health insurance to--I assume--shame the rest of us into providing for their care against our will or maybe you mention it to simply point to the inhumanity of the situation.

In either case, it does beg the question, doesn’t it?

Why do people who clearly cannot afford to have children doing so? And if they choose to make the decision to have children--or thoughtlessly engage in activity that may produce children--they cannot afford and I am forced to pay for their poor decision making or stupid mistakes, shouldn’t I be compensated somehow? Or at the very least, shouldn’t these poor, thoughtless people be held to some account to the society that is forced to support them?

“Well, example after example of the failed conservative policy of privatization can be marshalled. The deregulation of the savings and loan industry (resulting in the biggest taxpayer bail out in history); the privatization of airport security (resulting in 9-11); the deregulation of energy trading (resulting in Enron); the privatization of military support in Iraq (leading to billions of taxpayer dollars going to Haliburton and "disappearing")

If this doesn't convince of the failure of conservative ideology, what will?” - Landru Guide Us

Well, I can’t say that you make a very good case against “failed conservative policy of privatization”, however, I think you make an excellent case of how well things can go screwy anytime the government gets involved with it regardless of enterprise.

And still you want the government to take over your health care? Really?

“The only real problem comes when conservatives, as some do from time to time, take up the argument of privatisation for the sake of privatisation, because nationalisation is somehow evil on principle. This attitude is self-destructive and illogical, in some cases nationalisation is very worthwhile and valid, in others it would be a terrible idea.” - Vermillion

(Sir, I may risk taking your comments somewhat out of context, but as you have made a rather “sweeping” comment here, I will address it.)

Being a conservative, myself, I know of know one who argues for privatization over “nationalism” (socialism?) because it “is somehow evil”. Frankly, I’ve never even heard it put into those terms before. However, privatization is much preferred since socialism proves itself to be a failure time and time again. France is a wonderful example of how socialism has helped turn a country and its people into a nation that can only celebrate past glories as it is no longer a relevant society by any measure of which I'm aware.

“But when it comes to energy, medical care, food, then moral and social issues intrude. Having medical care for the wealthy only is simply immoral. Having energy policy determined by Exxon is simply bad for America.” - Landru Guide Us

“Having medical care for the wealthy only is simply immoral.” And this statement is completely untrue. There are many “poor” people who do have some minimal amount of insurance and for those that don’t, Medicare is available. It is also against federal law to deny emergency care to anyone due to inability to pay. That’s why all of the illegal aliens go to emergency rooms when they have a cold or other minor problem. Service to them cannot be denied.

“But when it comes to energy, medical care, food, then moral and social issues intrude.” Sir, at the risk of sounding stupid…huh? In what way has energy, medical care or food ever been an issue in religious or social terms?

What am I missing?

As a Christian, I can assure you that in terms of “energy, medical care [and] food”, “religion” is the “excuse” by which these very items are provided to the people who cannot afford them.

“From what I've read, the entire situation comes down to systemic failure. This wasn't the failure of one ideology. It was the failure of the people in charge to recognize their priorites, to recognize that their jobs weren't as bean counters, but to ensure that our soldiers who have served with honor are given the best treatment for their conditions possible.” – Titus

Possibly the most common-sense comment made on this subject…including me, I’m afraid.

And so on that note, I will end my little rant…for now.


(* The only exception of this would be the military. And since WWII, it doesn’t work very well when there has been a Democratic Commander in Chief.)

The reason some people, including myself advocate a socialized medical system is simply the economic reality that medicine provides, a blood clot in the leg before it gets bad is around 700$ to pay for, not everyone may have that around when its needed, its around 14,000$ after it gets bad and ends up at the emergency room, at which point the taxpayer or someone else besides the person who had to clot ends up paying for, or ends up in bankruptcy at any rate. Its not only this, but a company does not have to care about much more then making survival a reality, and after that a profit. Its also comes from the fact that some people like myself still hold onto the delusion that government was for the people by the people. Healthcare being age old for people simply because we need it, not want it.

You are right though that the government currently probably could not do it. The government is filled with people attempting to win over each other and not really about being government, it’s a micro version of why the U.N fails perpetually and genocides slip by with being little more then a blip on national news and even less on local stations and papers.

Lastly you are right, with all the talk about this and that, its easy to forget that our maimed and wounded veterans are returning to such a hospital on the greatest nations of the earths soil after defending it from some mortal foe while most of us probably would not dare to even sign up in peace corps anymore. Then again it might cost either the government or taxpayer some money, or it could end up costing some company some money, but for who’s its taking care of where is the money to come from, the taxpayer ultimately, even if its fitted by the military or the person serving in the military.

“The reason some people, including myself advocate a socialized medical system is simply the economic reality that medicine provides, a blood clot in the leg before it gets bad is around 700$ to pay for, not everyone may have that around when its needed, its around 14,000$ after it gets bad and ends up at the emergency room, at which point the taxpayer or someone else besides the person who had to clot ends up paying for, or ends up in bankruptcy at any rate. Its not only this, but a company does not have to care about much more then making survival a reality, and after that a profit. Its also comes from the fact that some people like myself still hold onto the delusion that government was for the people by the people. Healthcare being age old for people simply because we need it, not want it.” - Gordo

“The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from province to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent of every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

The system is going broke, says the federation, which campaigns for tax reform and private enterprise in health care.” – Ted

“…fifty percent of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts stated that it would take over six months for a sixty-five year old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery” - Ted

Sorry, Gordo, but you are ignoring the examples that Ted has already provided. For example, say someone does have a blood clot as per the example that you have provided. The “economic reality” is that they will pay half of their total income into a system that they will not be able to use. To address the blood clot, they would have to travel to a foreign country, wipe out their savings and go into debt (and remember, they are already paying half of their income for health care they can’t use) to get the care that they need. Hopefully, they will be able to do all of this before the blood clot dislodges from their leg and goes to their brain and kills them with a stroke.

And let’s face it! Who wants to pay half of their income for health care that will only threaten their health and expedite their death?

Of course you did make one excellent point, Gordo:

“You are right…” – Gordo

Noooooooooowwwwwwww you’re making sense!

Yes and to you the reality of socialized medicine is Canada, because people could not make any system outside of that one, I mean what was I thinking. I mean our system is so cool we have no health issues at all in America, so why change it!

Yes who wants to pay half of there income for healthcare, or who has the money to pay for it anyway when its needed. I do support though emergency room medicine as our form of quasi socialized medicine, I mean at least it does not effect my taxes that much.

I quoted my words in your post as to make it easier for people to read.

Yes, and Ted is ignoring reality. Read back a bit Dale, I pointed out to Ted that according to every measurable statistic Canadian health care is superior nationwide to American. That includes, among other: Surgury survival rates (better in Canada), post-operative infection rates (lower in Canada), cancer survival rates (better in Canada, except for breast cancer which is 1% lower), average lifespan (better in Canada), child mortalitay rate (lower in Canada), and so on.

Ted's answer was to claim that statistics don't show the real story, and respond with a couple extreme cases drawn from far-right American webpages dedicated against socialised medicine. So national statistics don't show the whole story, but two extreme cases DO show the whole story? Am I the only one who realises how intellectually bankrupt that is?

Firstly, to respond to a couple of far-right extreme cases, all I need to do is present a couple examples of extreme horribvle cases of medical care disasters in the US. Surely that is EXACTLY as representative as bad Canadian cases, right?

Secondly, I can respond with good cases of my own from Canada: hey, here's one!

My father was diagnosed with cancer last year, and the wait time between diagnosis and his first appointment was 36 hours. Not years or months or weeks, but hours. And thank god he is Canadian, as the survival rate for his cancer is higher in Canada than in the US. (Those pesky statistics again)


Reality time: canadian health care is BETTER than the standard in the US, and it is CHEAPER< expending less money per capita. AND, as I stated, the Canadian socialised system is not even the best around, France, Scandinavia, Czech republic, all have socialised medical systems which are even BETTER.

And isn't that the point of this thread? Socialised medicince CAN and DOES provide consistently better medical care overall for LESS money than the current system in the US. To thus deliberately exclude the possibility of socialised medicine in the US just because of outdated and inaccurate political ideas that socialism = pure evil is simply stupid.




Good question; lets ask the United States! After all, they pay more for health care per capita than Canada, and obtain less of a result, so perhaps you should be asking the question yourself, why is the US willing to put up with this situation? Why are you?


No socialised medicine is not a cure-all, and of course it brings with it its own problems: the NHS in the UK is a good example. It doesn't always work, it still needs to be done intelligently and with foresight to pull it off; but for god sake dont ignore it as a possibilitybased on some far-right ideological claptrap, and don't invent fictional failings in the system to support the same.



Now, now, Ted, are you making things up, again?

Every poll I can find from the last five years clearly shows a majority of Americans want universal medical care provided by the government, I have not been able to find a SINGLE one which says otherwise...

From all over the major polling companies on the internet:

"a 2003 Washington Post/ABC poll, by almost a two-to-one margin (62 percent to 33 percent), Americans said that they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program"

"In a Kaiser poll in June 2003, more than seven in ten adults (72 percent) agreed that the government should guarantee health insurance for all citizens, even if it means repealing most of the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush, while less than one-quarter (24 percent) disagreed with this statement."

"Gallup asked whether the federal government should make sure all Americans have health coverage, they agreed that was a federal government responsibility by 62 percent to 35 percent (November 2002)."

"In August 2003, Pew found Americans favoring, by 67 percent to 26 percent, the U.S. government guaranteeing “health insurance for all citizens,” even if that meant repealing most of “recent tax cuts.” And the majority was scarcely diminished (67 percent to 29 percent) by referring not to repealing tax cuts but more directly to “raising taxes.”

"In a January 2006 New York Times/CBS News poll, the public said by a 62 percent-to-31 percent margin that it was the federal government’s responsibility to “guarantee health care for all.” In the November Gallup poll, 69 percent agreed that “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage,”

"the October KFF/ABC/USAT poll, the proposal cited above to replace the current employer-based system with a universal government-run health insurance program like Medicare enjoys support by a 56 percent to 40 percent margin."

One of these days I am going to have to count all the huge assertions you make which turn out to be 100% wrong on fact: there have been at least half a dozen just this week alone.

What you do is eliminate VA hospitals completely. Simply have the government buy private insurance for veterans. Let us have true privatization. VA hospitals have been a joke since the Korean War era, if not sooner. Eliminate them.



Shows how dumb 72% of Americans are. It would cost a lot more than that. Also shows how biased some polls are.

“I mean what was I thinking”? – Gordo

I understand, bro. I was wondering the same thing myself.

“Read back a bit Dale, I pointed out to Ted that according to every measurable statistic Canadian health care is superior nationwide to American. That includes, among other: Surgury survival rates (better in Canada), post-operative infection rates (lower in Canada), cancer survival rates (better in Canada, except for breast cancer which is 1% lower), average lifespan (better in Canada), child mortalitay rate (lower in Canada), and so on.” – Vermillion

I’ve seen a couple of the statistics that you mentioned here before; although I must admit it’s been a few years ago. However the statistics that I’m familiar with regarding Canada did not take into consideration those pati