« Red State Upade | Main | Democrat Stockholm Syndrome »

March 25, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Could you please provide the supporting stats that we have the best health care?

James T.

Could you please provide the proof that we don't?



number 37th in rank... number one in how much money we spend per person. Sounds about right. Conservatives usually complain about the W.H.O. rankings though, because WHO has the nerve to look at things like whether or not people have access to healthcare.

Dan K.

Rankings like those of the WHO generally take in factors into account (like how many people are covered) that can be directly manipulated by simply spending more money on health care. By the way, Monaco is a tax haven it has seen a #13 ranking. Maybe we should lower taxes.

In the U.S., the heart disease death rate has been shrinking for decades (CDC). Cancer survival rates have been improving for decades (National Cancer Institute).

Predictably, the U.S. has not done well in health care rankings with variables like "access" (by the way, everyone has access to health care in the U.S. in emergency rooms) and "equity." Well, it's easy to have more equity if everyone has the same shoddy system.

But in one of these studies - that of the Commonwealth Fund - the U.S. placed first in the category of "right care." (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx)

If you're going to be intellectually honest about the health care debate, you do have to consider just what goes into these rankings. It's apparent that nationalized health care gets a boost.

If I were going to create a list of the best pizza restaurants in the world, and one of my criteria was "access to Dan," don't you think I would grade the nearby pizza restaurants more highly as a result?


"by the way, everyone has access to health care in the U.S. in emergency rooms"

i don't think it takes a genius to realize that that's less efficient than simply giving people access to check ups and primary care.

Access is important criteria because it's stupid to say you have the best doctors in the world... that nobody uses.


Mmmm. Mmmm. Mmmm. Retirees are gonna love this:

Not to mention we're all gonna pay higher costs for services and products... along with the higher taxes.

Thanks commies in congress... and their leader bHo.


The little 20 year old twerps who think hussein is their savior will be thirty something some day.

Hmmm....Hmmm....Hmmm...You are screwed!


oh no, businesses losing corporate welfare! how ever shall we survive as a nation? You guys will complain about any change to the status quo.

that's been the conservative method for a long time. Give a specific tax break so a company can provide a service that the government wants. The government loses revenue and a service gets provided. That's no different than any other unfunded entitlement, and just as fiscally irresponsible. But then you go to end the tax break and try to pay for these things, and now everyone talks about rising costs? Ha. I'm amazed that you people didn't wreck america sooner.


what welfare? This is just another tax ... that will end up costing all of us (that includes you) more money. Guess you enjoy paying higher for goods, services and taxes. you go smarter-than-everyone derek.


"This is just another tax"

in this case, it's the end of a tax break. That fact that in your mind you think you weren't paying for this before, shows just how great this republican strategy works.

This is literally what happened. A business is paying taxes. The government decides that they want that business covering prescriptions for retirees, so they give a tax break. The government loses money on that deal. YOU as a tax payer lose money on that deal. YOU now have to take over that share of tax revenue the company is no longer paying. But of course, the government doesn't work like that and in reality the only thing that went up in the bush years was the deficit, which is why you perceive the ending of this loophole as some whole new cost you have to bear.


You can take this to a bunch of different industries. If we ended subsidies to the corn industry, the price of corn would rise. Everyone would notice the price increase, but how many people notice that their tax dollars go to keeping the current price artificially low?


"The government loses money on that deal." You need to explain why you "think" the government needs to "make" money on drug cost reimbursements that businesses offer to retirees.

I know my tax dollars are going to subsidize... it's time government stop trying to regulate and subsidize everything that moves or exists.

Perfect common sense... subsidize corn... NOT! Who's brainy idea was that? A New Deal... that's no longer new or useful.


As long as derek wants to talk money... here's something he can chew on:


If we can even believe pumpkin head, he will be mid thirties in nine years.
And all of that awesome money he thinks he is making with commie government will just dwindle away year after year.

What a dismal future he an idiots like him have to look forward to.

Maybe they will get lucky and the commie government will lower the "death Panel" age by then and they won't have to live into their 70's paying through the nose for worthless medication.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

More on James T. Harris


Book James Harris to speak at your event

September 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30