Say Anything Blog

American Cancer Society plans to devote its entire $15 million advertising budget this year not to smoking cessation or colorectal screening but to the consequences of inadequate health coverage.

The real reason they stopped anti-smoking advertisement is because we need new smokers to pay for all the new Socialized medicine, ala SCHIP.

I always smile when I hear they are going to raise cigarette taxes to pay for something…

On my site, I characterize this as “concentrating on #4 on the Pareto Chart.” Yes, some of the problem with health care IS in the way we “insure” ourselves to death, but a bigger part of the problem is our smoking, eating too many fatty foods, and so on.  So they’re looking at the little things and ignoring the big one.

Very sad, and I dare suggest immoral to ignore the obvious to concentrate on the obscure.

Pretty much shows the cancer society is not worth supporting.

I really hate charities that use the money you give to help people to lobby for government bailouts.

I believe in private charity, not in government so that’s why I give my money to the private group.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

It’s best to discuss a statistic in context, as opposed to drawing conclusions from the statistic alone:

http://www.gooznews.com/archives/000781.html

While still a positive indicator, this doesn’t paint a picture of systemic superiority as some are suggesting.

On a tangent, I’d be interested to know what numbers of impoverished Americans are never diagnosed or treated for their cancers. Are they represented in this statistic?

Socialized medicine is not all sweetness and light by any means, but at least it represents a higher ideal. I’m willing to make some sacrifices to keep humanity progressive (a trivial sacrifice in comparison to that of the disenfranchised in other systems).

I’m willing to make some sacrifices to keep humanity progressive

There’s nothing stopping you.  There are plenty of high minded individuals who say they are willing to pay for the uninsured but somehow they don’t do it.

I’m thinking that what they really want is for someone else to make the sacrifice and they’ll take the credit.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Perhaps they could go after the incompetent health care. 700,000 doctors in the U.S. accidentally kill 125,000 people each year. Another 120,000 people die in hospitals from improperly administered prescribed drugs.

Maybe they could then go after the oil and auto industries. They kill in excess of 500,000 people each year. It seems like a big chunk of our health care requirements would be eliminated.

Wonder where the ACS gets a lot of its donations?

There are plenty of high minded individuals who say they are willing to pay for the uninsured but somehow they don’t do it.

As a Canadian health care professional, I do pay (and work) so that all our citizens may enjoy the privilege of health care. Every day, I witness huge volumes of irresponsible use in an emergency department (people that don’t need to be there), which is one of the primary weaknesses of our system.

That said, it’s still worth it. I’d rather struggle to improve a system that works towards a societal ideal than one which fattens my wallet while polarizing the population into haves and have-nots.

Now, in Canada we have the luxury to pursue this… In a country as large and with such a substantial poverty problem as the U.S., I don’t think socialized medicine is particularly feasible. I’m simply saying that socialized medicine is certainly not ‘a step backwards’. If anything, it would be a significant step forwards if the U.S. was ever in a real position to consider it.

EWS48, since you think that’s a high number, compare it with health care in other countries… Otherwise it’s just meaningless drivel.

Robert,

but a bigger part of the problem is our smoking, eating too many fatty foods, and so on.

I don’t doubt this, but how do you solve those problems without terribly draconian laws regulating how we live our personal lives?

I, personally, think people need to be free to make bad decisions along with the good ones.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Cash Money:

Now, in Canada we have the luxury to pursue this… In a country as large and with such a substantial poverty problem as the U.S., I don’t think socialized medicine is particularly feasible.

You mean this type of poverty?

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrig erator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had suf ficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

The reality is that a strong economy drives up the standard of living for everybody.  If you take the lowest 10% economically in the US, they fit rather nicely with the middle class American of 1970.

The problem with socialized medicine isn’t its greater expense, but its inability to innovate.  That’s fundamentally why the US system is better than most others, unless one decides to include in the definition of “how good” the medical system is, but how socialized it is.

In a country as large and with such a substantial poverty problem as the U.S.

We have a poverty problem?  According to who?

This is a nation where the poor people are fat.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

As a Canadian health care professional, I do pay (and work) so that all our citizens may enjoy the privilege of health care.

As an American executive I work hard every day to provide insurance to my family and even towards my co-workers. 

And I’m proud that our system has the best actual care in the world. 

What about Canadians that flock down here to get procedures done because they can’t get in in Canada?

How about he fact that Canadian Premature babies have to be sent down here to get care.  I’m glad you’re doing that but what are you going to do if our system gets as messed up as yours?

The basic premise that we have 50 million uninsured people is misleading.

First of all probably 10 million of those people are here illegally.  (I say let them go home to their socialist paradise for coverage or let them go to Canada). 

Secondly a majority of the remainder are merely between jobs and will have health insurance coverage in a few months. 

Many of the uninsured have an income where they could easily afford health care insurance.  (If they don’t think it’s worth their money why should money be taken from me to give to them?)

Finally you pretend as if we don’t have a safety valve.  I don’t agree with it, but if a deadbeat goes to an emergency room they get taken care of and I’ll maintain the care they get is better than up in Canada.

I think the reason why the US health care system is criticized internationally is because the socialists know they can’t compete with the US.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

We have a poverty problem?  According to who?

This is a nation where the poor people are fat.

Our poverty statistics exclude government (and presumably charitable) assistance. 

Therefore our poor have a higher standard of living than a average Parisian.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

The problem with socialized medicine isn’t its greater expense, but its inability to innovate.

While that is definitely one of the problems, I think the main problem is the separation of the payer from the consumer, which eliminates the ability of supply/demand/price to do its job, resulting in both rising costs and shortages.  Both of those are inevitable with a socialized system.  If you want real fairness, go to a demand system.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

According to lefties fair is someone else paying for your benefits.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

...but a bigger part of the problem is our smoking, eating too many fatty foods, and so on.  So they’re looking at the little things and ignoring the big one.

This is only true in the collectivist approach to healthcare, which is failing.  If each individual is responsible for the consequences of his or her decisions, bad personal habits become increased income for the healthcare business, not excessive cost, the way it does with a collectivist system.  Each individual pays for the consequences of how they live.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

That said, it’s still worth it. I’d rather struggle to improve a system that works towards a societal ideal than one which fattens my wallet while polarizing the population into haves and have-nots.

This is one of the lies of Karl Marx; the reality is that socialism empowers the ruling class, be they politicians or administrators, at the expense of “the proletariat”.  Instead of one’s societal position being determined by his or her individual ability and drive, those who decide what the “societal ideal” is determine it for everyone.  The only question socialism answers is:  “How can we enslave the population without them realizing it?”

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

The real problem with socialized medicine isn’t its lack of efficiency, or its lack of innovation, or its lack of incentives.  The real problem is the use of force.  Like all collectivist ideals, it is forced upon everyone, providers, customers, and those who choose to opt out for their own reasons.  And the freedom of all us is diminished in the process.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

This is only true in the collectivist approach to healthcare, which is failing.

I think r108 hits the nail on the head there.  That my overeating and unhealthy lifestyle effects my neighbor’s health insurance/health care costs is a problem with a system that doesn’t adequately place the burden of bad choices on the individual.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The California legislature is trying to push socialized care on us.  One of their “selling points” is that it provides one level of care for everyone.  One might assume that that that one level is achieved by pulling up the level of care of those at the lowest end of the spectrum, but it is actually achieved mainly by pulling down the level of those at the top. 

Sorry, I don’t call that progress.  The one goal can be achieved without making the affluent give up their advantage.

Collectivist thinking is what drives the nanny state.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

The real problem with socialized medicine isn’t its lack of efficiency, or its lack of innovation, or its lack of incentives.  The real problem is the use of force.

I would only add that the use of force is made necessary by the collectivist attitude.  Normally, individuals pursue their individual desires and ideas, but under collectivism, everyone has to act as one, which necessarily involves the use of force.  Drop the premise of collectivism, and the use of force is no longer necessary.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

One of their “selling points” is that it provides one level of care for everyone.  One might assume that that that one level is achieved by pulling up the level of care of those at the lowest end of the spectrum, but it is actually achieved mainly by pulling down the level of those at the top.

Eliminate competition, like the post office.

It’s very telling that the Canadians made competition illegal, although I think they relaxed that.  Government systems can’t handle competition because they are so inefficient and provide such bad service.

Speaking of competition if California DID enact that you’d see a number of things.  The elite would get their medical care out of state.  The parties that got stuck with the bill (I assume businesses) would start fleeing in droves.  But the countries losers and deadbeats (not to mention deadbeats sneaking in from other countries) would flock in.

That’s the beauty of federalism it at least provides some measure of competition which is why there’s such a push to enact communized medicine on a national level.  There’s no place left to go.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

The one goal can be achieved without
making the affluent give up their advantage.

That “advantage” is one of the incentives to be successful.  Why strive, acquire education and skills, and be more productive when the lazy slug next door gets the same outcome you get?
Paradoxically, those same people who want the “same level of care” for all believe in the concept of evolution, which is based on “survival of the fittest”.  A curious dichotomy, to be sure.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

In a stark departure from past practice, the American Cancer Society plans to devote its entire $15 million advertising budget this year not to smoking cessation or colorectal screening but to the consequences of inadequate health coverage.

This could be a good thing, if they were to focus their message to the individual rather than the politician. They need to advocate personal responsibility and convey the message that health care is not free.

That “advantage” is one of the incentives to be successful.  Why strive, acquire education and skills, and be more productive when the lazy slug next door gets the same outcome you get

For some reason the deadbeats think that those of us that work hard to provide a good life for our families are willing to work just as hard to provide them with a good life (and have our families suffer as a result.)

Here’s the deal, the system works best when everyone pulls their share.  Of course that’s never going to happen, but the easier you make it for people to do the wrong thing the more you’ll get the wrong thing and less of the right thing.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

if they were to focus their message to the individual rather than the politician.

Somehow I don’t think they’re going to spend their time talking about people who could afford health insurance but don’t pay for it (much of the blame goes to government enforced cost shifting) and about people that don’t stick in jobs that provide health care.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Cash Money - Socialized medicine is not all sweetness and light by any means, but at least it represents a higher ideal.

Oh, no you don’t. You don’t get away with questioning my motive while padding your intentions as somehow superior.

My “higher ideal” is a superior health care system. One that innovates, creates, and constantly gets better. I don’t look to government for those ideals. I look to free people. That’s where we differ.

I’m willing to make some sacrifices to keep humanity progressive...

So am I, which is why I will never try your system. Socialism is not “progressive”. It is regressive.

You’ve deluded yourself “Cash Money”, and you’ve gone a step further by declaring yourself morally superior for this delusion.

I’d rather struggle to improve a system that works towards a societal ideal than one which fattens my wallet while polarizing the population into haves and have-nots.

It’s not the system doing the polarization. It is you. You did it up above with your morally superior rant. It’s good that you recognize this as a problem “Cash Money”. Since it is your problem, you can easily work to change it.

ews48 - Maybe they could then go after the oil and auto industries. They kill in excess of 500,000 people each year.

Where did that figure come from? I call BS on it. There’s no way the oil and auto industries kill half a million people a year. Let’s not get ridiculous.

I would say that the oil and gas industries have saved billions of lives by not forcing us to live like savages.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Why is it that lefties, who want to live in a collectivist society, don’t just move to where one already exists?  There are plenty of places on Earth that embrace the collectivist ideology.  Instead, lefties are trying to force their unwanted collectivism on the most individualistic nation on Earth, the United States of America.  Instead of enjoying their collectivist lifestyle in some place that wants it, they are bound and determined to convert us to their ideology.  It makes me think that it isn’t the “value” of their lifestyle that they are pushing; it’s all about power and control.  They seem to be very uncomfortable with a diversity of opinion.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Meanwhile we’re having a terrible time keeping people out who are fleeing socialistic systems. 

Unfortunately these refugee’s aren’t smart enough to leave socialism behind.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

It’s very telling that the Canadians made competition illegal, although I think they relaxed that.

Not voluntarily - their Supreme Court ruled that the Government didn’t have the authority to outlaw private health care.

And that’s exactly what the CA plan would do - outlaw health care outside the government program.  Better care can’t be bought for any price. 

And Whistler, your future scenario is spot on, but it would be even worse than you think - the proposed plan makes health care available to anyone who resides “or intends to reside” in the state.  No length of residency requirements, no legal residency requirements.  All you have to do is say you plan to stay and the health care is yours.

Wow, they really want to mess up California don’t they.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Why is it that lefties, who want to live in a collectivist society, don’t just move to where one already exists?

Because, as long as one bastion of freedom exists for comparison, they can’t pretend that theirs is a superior way of life! People keep escaping from their “paradise on earth” so long as there’s a place to escape to!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

The political ruling class in this state has no regard for the will of the people. They are operating a dictatorial system here that touches every area of our lives. As an example:

Several years ago through the initiative process, Californians defended marraige as being between one man and one woman, but Attorney General Jerry “moonbeam” Brown and the Terminator Governor recently sent motions to the California Supreme Court saying that only the word marriage was included in that initiative and there were no specific restrictions on granting homosexuals every legal right associated with marraige as long as it was not called “marriage.” They went further and said marriage itself is an outdated arrangement and should no longer be recognized by state law.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57339

The only reason I raise this issue is to demonstrate how far Left California has traveled even under Arnold the pig and how they will succeed in forcing socialized medicine on this state no matter what the voters want.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Why is it that lefties, who want to live in a collectivist society, don’t just move to where one already exists?

What a silly question!  If they are too lazy or uninspired to take care of themselves and their own families, expecting the rest of society to do it for them, they are certainly unlikely to show enough initiative to pick up and move.

Besides the dirty little truth is that most lefties don’t really want to live in a collectivist society, as much as they want to punish those who refuse give up their own freedom.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Elisa:

Sorry, I don’t call that progress.  The one goal can be achieved without making the affluent give up their advantage.

A related point is that the wealthy drive “cutting edge” medical treatments. Initially these are very expensive, but drop in price as more doctors become trained in the new techniques.  This is part of the theme that socialized medicine suppresses innovation that I was making earlier…

Likwidshoe:

Where did that figure come from? I call BS on it. There’s no way the oil and auto industries kill half a million people a year. Let’s not get ridiculous.

That’s a good point.  A related one is how does one relate the doctor’s medical treatment to number of deaths?

You know how many die from the current treatment, but you don’t know the cost in human lives of a less aggressive treatment protocol, such as those used in the CYA clinics of Europe.

If they are too lazy or uninspired to take care of themselves and their own families, expecting the rest of society to do it for them, they are certainly unlikely to show enough initiative to pick up and move.

Don’t forget fear.  They want a nanny state because they are afraid to live without a safety net, so they are definitely too afraid to move to a different country.

Carrick: Exactly!  The whole socialized medicine scheme just completely ignores the fact that it’s the capitalists who pioneer the fields of new medicine and technology.  Take away the capitalist base and you stifle medical progress.  It’s no coincidence that the majority of medical breakthroughs happen in capitalist societies.

(by the way, I’m Elisa.  I had forgotten that I had registered since I’ve been away for awhile.  D’oh!)

iAMbs: It’s no coincidence that the majority of medical breakthroughs happen in capitalist societies.

Yep.  The figures don’t lie:
While most basic research remains funded by the government, about 3/4 of the advanced R&D ("to product") investment comes from industry.

The fact that 35% of the R&D coming from a country that represents 25% of the total world GDP and less than 5% of its total population is telling us something important about a fdemand based system versus a centrally controlled one!

That’s a good point.  A related one is how does one relate the doctor’s medical treatment to number of deaths?

It’s actually really hard to determine whether or not malpractice is related to a patient’s death.  Obvious cases where a doctor was drunk or high or in some other way grossly negligent are obvious, but when it comes down to things like “you should have performed this treatment/procedure instead of this one” there’s a lot of 20/20 hindsight going on.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob:

when it comes down to things like “you should have performed this treatment/procedure instead of this one” there’s a lot of 20/20 hindsight going on.

Yep!

Pretty much like many of the criticisms of US policy in Iraq after the war.  While there are examples of gross mistakes both in Iraq and in medicine (disbanding the Iraqi Army being akin to amputating the wrong limb), most cases are a matter of best judgement at the time, with no proof that the 20-20 hindsight version would have resulted in any better outcome.

Really, public attitudes about malpractice are shaped by the publics’ attitude about lawsuits in general.

It used to be that when you slipped and fell in a grocery store you were just embarrassed and had a sore rump.  These days people act like they’ve just bought a winning lottery ticket.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If there has to be obligatory education (which is mandated) why should there not be a right to health care? Those who say they don’t wish to pay for others never complain that they are obliged to educate America’s children, regardless of economic background. Surely keeping a nation healthy is equally important?

David Cunard:

Surely keeping a nation healthy is equally important?

Yep, the question is what is the best way to improve the current system.  What we’re arguing here is i) there is no evidence that the current “free-market-based” system denies essential healthcare for Americans, ii) there is evidence that essential healthcare is not as frequently provided by people in socialized medical systems, and iii) the evidence strongly indicates that improves in healthcare occur much more rapidly in a free-market system than in a centrally controlled one.

That public education thing isn’t working out too well either.  If we weren’t paying taxes to support the broken public school system perhaps we could afford a decent private school.

David Cunard - If there has to be obligatory education (which is mandated) why should there not be a right to health care?

Why don’t you add food to that as well? Might as well. There’s no limit to the amount of “rights” we can add with this argument.

What?!  The American Cancer Society has stopped spending money on Cancer research??  Not a dime more from me, and I’ll let them know every time they send a solicitation with a postage paid envelope.  Liars.

Similar to PETA killing more animals than shelters.

Communism is evil

What?!  The American Cancer Society has stopped spending money on Cancer research??

No. It only talked of it’s advertising budget. It said nothing of cancer research.

How much research could they do for the $15,000,000 that they are foolishly wasting on a political cause?

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

Not by any stretch of the imagination does the US have the best or most efficient health care system in the world. There are basically two types of system, insurance based and tax financed. The evidence strongly suggests that the tax financed systems work better in terms of providing superior care, equal access for all, and controlling costs (as measured by percentage of real GDP devoted to health care). When the World Health Care Organization used those criteria to rank health care systems, France won first prize and the US was sixth or seventh. That’s not surprising. Any American, such as myself, who has used the French and US systems knows that the French system provides better care and is a lot less expensive. France not only covers all of its citizens with a first rate health care system that uses 13% of real GDP versus 18% for the US, it has achieved a life expectancy two years higher and an infant mortality rate less than half the US. Since the French won the American Revolution, maybe it is time it is the conservatives woke up and stop pretending the US is the last word on how a country should be run before US health care costs make it uncompetitive.

Cordialement,

An American in Paris.

Roderick Beck brings up every single argument that was debunked the other day, both with the post and in the comments.

There are basically two types of system, insurance based and tax financed.

Nope.  There is the best way, a market-based system, a demand system.  A command system will always fail, no matter who is in command.  It really doesn’t matter if the “commander” is the govt directly, or the govt indirectly through insurance companies.  Duh.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

As R*108 notes, there is “market based” healthcare, and we used to have that until the end of WWII.  People who have failed to learn their history as they get their “guaranteed quality public education” often forget that their grandparents were unlikely to have any sort of health insurance at all, let alone an HMO like system.  They simply paid “cash on the barrelhead” or worked out credit terms.  A good picture of this is given in Laura Ingalls Wilder’s “The First Four Years.”

And the costs?  Far lower than today.  While certainly certain things are available today that were not in the past, we would do well to think of whether our “insurance” (government or private) system has kept costs in line, or has relentlessly driven costs up.

Man, an aptly named blog - “Say Anything”. 

Because this post is nothing but pure unadulterated crap.

Real clever rebuttal of everything said here.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Man, an aptly named blog - “Say Anything”.

"D" , an aptly named commenter - not a complete failure, but substantially below average!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

I think he got a break by being graded on a curve.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Because this post is nothing but pure unadulterated crap.

And this assinine post of yours is just plain crap.  Nice of you to add your crap to ours.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

But the leaders of several such organizations, including the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association and the Alzheimers Association, said they applauded the campaign’s message that progress against chronic disease would be halting until the country fixed its health care system.

True but devoting 100% of the budget to this?? Come on.