I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

Yeah too bad the overwhelming majority of first world countries that have tried universal health care are seeing their medicare costs skyrocketing to the point of bankruptucy.  Oops!  Too bad most of us are trying desperately to figure out a way out of the "free" health care hole we have dug ourselves into.  D’oh!  Here in Quebec, in a quasi-socialist part of North America, of the kind that the self-delusional Obamimites seem to want to emulate, a year long study was just released a few days ago which basically says that we’re screwed and if things proceed as they are, we will no longer be able to afford our "free" health care.  Fortunately our cowardly government mostly ignored the findings.  Yay for us!!  Yay, massive new taxes on an already overtaxed, over indebted, over regulated, massively over bureaucratized nanny state society.  Woo hoo for liberalism, otherwise know as "paradise on Earth".  Luckily, if things proceed as they are, Americans will soon be able to share our miseries, errr, I mean the "wonders" and "joys" of big government, nanny state "free" health care.  I mean, it’s not like American can’t already afford His Obamaness’ generosity, especially with the coming baby boom retirement looming…right?  Oh well, ideology trumps reality, shockingly. 

May His Obamaness bless us with His hope, His "change", His new visions of government (that noone else apparently outside of the US has tried, but He, He has the will and the strength, the experience and the wisdom do to what normal men and women and politicians have tried for a generation to do yet failed spectacularly time after time outside the up until now ignorant US).  

It’s not that communism, errr, universal health care is inherently an unworkable system, it’s that the "wrong" people are that ones who always keep trying to implement it.  It’s not the system, it’s the people, dontcha know.  Oh well, thank Obama for Obama.  If anyone will get it right, He will.

Sad.

Take care Michael.

To respond to Michael, he can try to frame this issue if he wants, but an overwhelming majority of first world countries have universal health care programs, so why he brings up Cuba is silly. Especially since the country he now resides in offers pretty much exactly the same plan that Obama and Hillary are offering. Once again, Michael proves he’s only interested in scoring cheap political points instead of engaging in real debate.

My point actually still stands. You seem to be incapable to understand what arguments work and what arguments don’t. For instance, when someone says "covering all is per definition better than not covering all," another one can say "they do that in Cuba, do you think Cuba is better in that regard than the US?" That’s fair. But by saying "well, they have it to in the Netherlands" you don’t address the point that, in fact, not all coverage automatically means it’s better than some not covered. That might be difficult to grasp for you, but I’m sure you’ll figure it out after a couple of philosophy or debating classes.

As for the Netherlands, it’s typical that you talk about things you know little of. For instance, the government played a very big role here until a couple of years ago when we reformed the system - the reforms being led by my party - which would allow more competition. Slowly but surely we’re decreasing the role of government and if it’s up to me we’ll continue to decrease it for quite a while to come.

As for your personal attacks: I have enough of you Justin. You’re warned. One more personal attack and I’ll ban you personally. You may be a blogger, who thinks he can ignore traditions on a blog, but I’m not willing to let you do this time and again. Try it again and it’s the last time you were allowed to comment here. I think that readers can see that you’re not exactly free of scoring cheap points when you can. You do so constantly (moderation and all that).

But first and foremost, I did read what you wrote, and I’m not making anything up. I asked you a fair question, given that your basic premise is that the Dems are seeking to nationalize health care and should avoid the pitfalls of England and Canada’s programs. See, I disagree with the very idea that you made a comparison between unlike systems, but since you did I’m asking the question. That’s fair.

More importantly, what I’m saying is that the proposals already put forth DO address what you’re afraid of. And beyond your worries about bureaucracies, I still go back to my point that a system that covers everybody is better and more moral than a system that leaves 45 million uncovered. We can not claim to have the best health care system in the world when we leave 15% of our population without care. Personally, I don’t like nationalized health care systems, but no system is perfect and if I had to choose between having everybody covered or leaving millions hung out to dry, I’d choose the former. Thankfully, we’re being given choices in this election that offer different options. But that’s only a good thing if we adopt one of those options. If we don’t, our system is simply not as good.

To respond to Michael, he can try to frame this issue if he wants, but an overwhelming majority of first world countries have universal health care programs, so why he brings up Cuba is silly. Especially since the country he now resides in offers pretty much exactly the same plan that Obama and Hillary are offering. Once again, Michael proves he’s only interested in scoring cheap political points instead of engaging in real debate.

One last thing, I want to see more than just one link to one study on this "relatively ineffective" issue of generics. I’d also like to see proof that this will be a problem in the programs Obama and Hillary are proposing, because, again, what is being offered is not nationalized, government run health care.

The military effectively creates the environment in which those 3 rights can be exercised.

Your personal health situation is one of many factors that governs your use and relative success within that environment but is no more a guaranteed right than other success factors such as intelligence, skin color, or genetic heritage.

This might be old hat, but it still seems to me that a place where liberals and conservatives could find good common ground is in universal preventative care. The largest, most inefficient, and most distributed (meaning spread to people not physically receiving the care) costs of a hospital is the emergency room. Good preventative care can dramatically reduce that cost and the cost of the whole system, and seems like a perfectly reasonable place to start with our health care system. Sorry, no time for a citation

Justin: the shaky efficacy of many generics is a huge problem that HMO’s are unwilling to deal with, because their bottom line says that if there’s a cheaper alternative then that must be used (quality be damned.)

Please medical literature. With few if any exceptions I’ve not seen strong medical research suggesting signficant therapuetic differences between brand name and generic equivalents.