Comments on: I’m on MSNBC 9am EST

By: charles fredricksen

charles fredricksen — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:51:27 +0000

Dyland, why do you have guest? Your sentences and questions are soooo long your appear to turn blue in the face. Please, a little less of you and a little more of your guest.

By: FSK

FSK — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:46:57 +0000

You’re entirely missing the point.

The reason healthcare is expensive is that government licensing requirements for doctors artificially reduce the supply of doctors, raising the price. It’s silly to talk about the health care problem without talking about the damaging effect of the AMA licensing cartel.

How did you even get invited on a mainstream media program? I’m considering trying that to promote my blog.

By: bevamirage

bevamirage — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:17:11 +0000

OB,

You meant “deters” instead of “detracts”

Nawitus,

You think yours is a moral argument for the reduction of suffering.
I think it’s an immoral argument for the increase of violence and coercion in a medical system which is already 46% directly in the hands of our various US governments and otherwise tied to employment through government stupidity. If left wingers want to alleviate the pain of the small percentage of Americans who are uninsured, they can form a collective and pay outright instead of using guns to bend everyone else to their vile, collectivist will. This, of course, will not happen because leftists prefer taking money from a villified minority to pay for their schemes.

By: nawitus

nawitus — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:26:40 +0000

I don’t know such a country, but that isin’t a proper argument against universal health care. In my country, there’s public and private health care, and you can choose freely which to take. Of course, some people travel to Estonia for example, since the costs are cheaper there (as Estonia is a poorer country).

In your country there are millions of people who will get no health care, I’d classify the USA as a crazy right wing developing country. People actually can say that non-rich people should die from the lack of health care.

By: nawitus

nawitus — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:23:52 +0000

Yes, I’d say you’re a crazy extremist when you essentially advocate the death of the non-rich.

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:57:46 +0000

Sure if costs exceed the benefits, I’d agree with you, but the benefits of receiving health care can’t exactly be as easily quantified as the costs of paying for it. What price do you put on a person being given (say) chemotherapy for cancer? Obviously the treatment can be costed, but the benefits for the patient (and his/her family) of saving their life, not to mention any future productivity they might do as a worker, can’t be ignored. What price do you put on saving a life?

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:49:20 +0000

You mean like all those Americans who cross the border into Canada to use their health care system or get their medical drugs?

By: TGGP

TGGP — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:42:29 +0000

I’ll cop to being a right-wing extremist. If the cost of providing a person with care exceeds the benefits it is then inefficient to provide them with care and they should not get it.

By: Paul Crowley

Paul Crowley — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:35:03 +0000

where none of its citizens ever feel compelled to travel to other countries (such as to the USA) to obtain essential medical care in a timely manner.

A government policy might reasonably choose to trade off that advantage against other desirables, like maximizing heath overall or minimizing cost.

By: Robert Koslover

Robert Koslover — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:02:58 +0000

Nawitus, to defend your position more effectively, please name a country with the universal health care you so admire, where none of its citizens ever feel compelled to travel to other countries (such as to the USA) to obtain essential medical care in a timely manner. Thanks.