I share your concern regarding what will happen if we don’t do something. And, yes, if we do nothing, the system we now have in place will indeed suck us dry.

If you have read my articles, you know that my suggestion is not that we do nothing. It’s that we once again make our healthcare system a market-based system, which, as of now, it is not. It is a system in which government, big insurance, and big pharma (aided by those in Congress whose influence they buy) pretty much run everything and have the health care consumer over a barrel.

A free-enterprise based system would keep the quality of healthcare very high, but would dramatically drive down prices. I explained this within the series.

Regarding what you wrote about hate and self-centeredness, I agree with the hate part. Unfortunately, because this is a very emotional issue and one in which the basic premise is not understood by many people, the hate, vitriol and accusations have really been strong. That is unfortunate. I hope you have not felt that way regarding my articles, or in the responses I have given to those who have written me; even the ones who have written in anger and misquoted me.

In terms of self-centeredness, perhaps to a point because, as human beings, we are concerned with our own welfare as well as the welfare of those we love. On the other hand, I also think that both sides care about the less fortunate. Those who want socialized healthcare are concerned that without that type of system too many people would have to go without. Those who don’t want socialized healthcare are concerned that if we were to have socialized medicine, then too many of the less fortunate (as well as pretty much the entire middle class) would be subject to long waiting lines for lifesaving care.

Thank you for your comment.

Best regards,

Bob

The system that we have in place now will suck America dri.

I haven’t seen so much hate and selfcenter people in all my life.

God help us.

Clement

Doing just a quick Google search, I found the following on the website, “Accuracy in Media.” It was written by Evan Sumortin and he quotes from Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell. http://www.aim.org/briefing/myths-about-socialized-medicine/ Nice page; it had some other excellent information as well you might like to check out. Here is what he says regarding Jean’s comment (by the way, the key conclusion will be second paragraph from the bottom, but good to read the entire answer):

Myth #4: The high mortality rates in the United States, relative to other countries with government-run medical care, suggests that the quality of medical care in the United States is not as good.

The implicit assumption that mortality statistics reflect care is inherently misleading. According to Dr. Thomas} Sowell, “Much has been made of mortality statistics which suggest that Americans’ health system is not as good as in some countries with government-run medical systems, as if medical care determines the state of people’s health.

But medical care has little effect on homicide rate, on obesity or on deaths from drug overdoses that occur before any doctor sees the patient. Yet the identification of health care, as indicated by morality rates, with medical care has become so automatic that a study which showed higher infant mortality rates among black Americans than among white Americans was instantly taken as showing less prenatal care among pregnant black women as the reason.

But American women of Filipino ancestry, Mexican ancestry, and of Central American and South American ancestries all had less prenatal care than white women-and lower infant mortality rates than white women. Indeed, Mexican Americans had less prenatal care than blacks and lower infant morality rates than either blacks or whites.”

A much more relevant comparison, argues Sowell, would be mortality rates between different countries on health problems in which medical care substantially effects. “This would still not be a perfect comparison, since even here other differences between the populations in the countries being compared are factors as well,” he asserts.

When the American College of Physicians calculated the death rate for “mortality amenable to healthcare” the United States was in the top three countries with low death rates…out of 19 countries studied.

The reality of socialized medicine is much grimmer than proponents of it would have you believe. Admittedly, our current system is far from perfect, but more government control is a step in the wrong direction.

Jean wrote: Bob, Interpretation of language is subjective and much is inferred from context.

Bob responds: But saying *I* said something when I did not is different from an inference.

Jean continues:…You said “Right wing is typically associated with government being involved in a person’s morals and left wing with government being involved in a person’s finances. I don’t want government involved in either. My Libertarian-based philosophy is simply that: “Everyone has a right to live their lives in whatever way they see fit providing they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.” Sounds Libertarian to me

Bob responds: It is indeed Libertarian, which I have already stated.

Jean continues: – Libertarian philosophy is generally considered to be “get the government out of my life philosophy – hence anti government to a large extent.”

Bob responds. That is your interpretation, I guess, but it’s an incorrect one. I don’t see that as anti-government whatsoever. I believe government is very necessary… to do the things they are supposed to do. I see that as, where government is not Constitutionally authorized to be, yes, they shouldn’t be bothering any private citizen. That is not anti-government. That is simply a desire to have government serve only in the role in which it is supposed to serve.

Jean: Here is the Wiki definition “Libertarianism is a term used to describe a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty[2] and minimize or even abolish the state.[3][4] Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum ranging from pro-property to anti-property, from minimal government to openly anarchist”

Bob responds: Jean, remember, anyone can post these comments and their own definitions. Mainstream Libertarians would define ourselves most closely with definition 1. There are the “fringe” people who go for definition 2. Regarding 3 and 4, never would a Liberarian be anti-property. And, again, the openly anarchist are more the fringe. Regardless, Jean, in using your common sense, and assuming you’ve read my writings, you know where I stand. I believe that government is basically hired by the people to protect our rights; not encroach upon them, be our nannies, etc.

Jean: I also believe that the scare tactics of long lines and poor service, used by those opposing single payer or government option health care are just that, “scare tactics” not necessarily based on abundance of fact.

Bob responds:How can you say that? These are real people who’ve had this happen to them and their families. Do you think they are all lying? I just read an article – actually written by Tom Campbell, former deputy minister of health and deputy minister of treasurey and economics for Onario – where he, while supposedly defending socialized healthcare is actually admitting these very things. These aren’t scare tactics. I must say that it sounds that if something does not support your position, you denounce it as not being the truth. Why is that?

Jean wrote: It is, of course, easy to find people who will tell their stories to support your position, just as it is easy to find those who will tell their stories to support a different position.

Bob responds: Jean, I didn’t ask people to write in with these things. And I certainly don’t know most of the people who I read about. Do you think there’s some mass conspiracy going on here to keep socialized medicine from happening? I’m almost speechless at this point (and that doesn’t happen often) in thinking that you can be thinking this is made up stuff.

Jean: The facts tell a different story, however. Infant mortality rates are higher in the US 6.26/1000 deaths per live births; Germany is 3.99; Norway is 3.58; and Sweden is 2.75.

Bob: Jean, in this case, the reason is that infant mortality is defined and reported differently in different countries so this is a case of apples being compared to oranges. In the U.S. as soon as a baby comes into the world he/she is considered a live baby. Not so in other countries depending upon certain criterion. For example. in the U.S., low birth-weight babies are still considered babies. In Canada, Germany and Austria, a premature baby weighing less than 500 grams is not considered a living child and is not counted in such statistics. They’re considered as never having been alive. Norway, as you mentioned, boasts one of the lwest infant mortality rates in the word, until you factor in weight at birth and then its rate is no better than in the U.S. In other countries babies that survive less than 24 hyours are also excluded and are classified as “stillborn.” In the U.S. any infant that shows any sign of life for any length of time is considred a live birth. A child born in Hong Kong or Japan that lives less than a day is reported as a “miscarriage” and not counted. In Switzerland and other parts of Eurpoe, a bably is not counted as a baby if it is less than 30 centimeters in length. By the way, since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 survivi8ng babies weighing less than 400 g (0.9 pounds) were born in the U.S. {Source: Investors Business Daily – IBDeditorials.com)

Any response to that? I don’t ask this in a way other than to see if you’re open to the fact that perhaps what you’re hearing isn’t totally correct. Meanwhile, I’m still not defending our current system. As I mentioned, it has been taken over by government so that in many ways we are already much of the way to being socialized. Why wouldn’t you want to go back to the only system that’s been proven to work for the most people, including the poor?

Jean writes:Life expectancy is also significantly lower in the US than in those countries. Those are facts that tell a story about the quality of health – countries that fare better than the US have “socialized” medicine.

Bob: I actually don’t have an answer to the last one regarding life expectancy. And that is the only one I can’t answer. Which doesn’t mean that the answer isn’t there; I just don’t know it. I’ll check and see what’s what. Regarding the quality of our health care, Jean, the quality of our health care has never been an issue. The quality is fine. It’s the pricing that is insanely high, and that is because of government’s thousands upon thousands of rules and regulations (as mentioned in my article, 133,000 pages of regulatory prescription in the Federal Registry) and its collusion with the huge insurance companies and big pharma that creates an uneven playing field and higher prices (I was surprised you didn’t make a point of agreeing with me on that one).

Jean: By the way, the only people talking about “socialized” medicine are those opposed to government supported health care options in the US. Under every plan I’ve seen, no one would be FORCED to take the option, everyone would still have a choice for private insurance under whatever “market” is in effect.

Bob: And here is what happens with that kind of choice (government plan against a free market plan) – while a company has to make a profit to stay in business, the government doesn’t have to. They compete unfairly with an unlimited supply of taxpaper money. Within a few years they drive out all private companies. They then have the market all to themselves. And then there is no choice, Jean. We saw that in Florida with Governor Crists Citizens Insurance. It basically drove out the private companies such as State Farm. So now we just have one – the state one. And, they are underfunded. If we get a huge hurricane our state is bankrupt. Then again, Mr. Crist will then call upon President Obama and ask for a bailout and, he’ll probably get it. Do you not get this?

Jean: Bob, we could continue this attack…

Boib: I don’t believe I have attacked in any way. And I don’t feel attacked.

Jean contnues:… and parry of each others’ position for a long time. It is your blog, you may have the last word, I’m done. Besides, I’m way to busy advocating for government suppored health care options.

Bob: Ahh, okay. Well, that answers some of my questions. I must add, there are no “government-supported” health care options. It’s taxpayer supported. You may think that’s a good thing. I think it’s good though to at least use words that correctly reflect the situation. Government cannot “support” anything as it does not produce anything. It can only fund with the money it extracts from the taxpayers. Be sure and see Johnnie for your parting gifts on the way out. Seriously, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Sounds Libertarian to me – Libertarian philosophy is generally considered to be “get the government out of my life philosophy – hence anti government to a large extent.” Here is the Wiki definition “Libertarianism is a term used to describe a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty[2] and minimize or even abolish the state.[3][4] Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum ranging from pro-property to anti-property, from minimal government to openly anarchist”

I also believe that the scare tactics of long lines and poor service, used by those opposing single payer or government option health care are just that, “scare tactics” not necessarily based on abundance of fact. It is, of course, easy to find people who will tell their stories to support your position, just as it is easy to find those who will tell their stories to support a different position. The facts tell a different story, however. Infant mortality rates are higher in the US 6.26/1000 deaths per live births; Germany is 3.99; Norway is 3.58; and Sweden is 2.75. Life expectancy is also significantly lower in the US than in those countries. Those are facts that tell a story about the quality of health – countries that fare better than the US have “socialized” medicine.

By the way, the only people talking about “socialized” medicine are those opposed to government supported health care options in the US. Under every plan I’ve seen, no one would be FORCED to take the option, everyone would still have a choice for private insurance under whatever “market” is in effect.

Bob, we could continue this attack and parry of each others’ position for a long time. It is your blog, you may have the last word, I’m done. Besides, I’m way to busy advocating for government suppored health care options.

Jean

Jean wrote: Ok – I’ll concede the point about classifying your statements as right wing. How about anti-government instead, which, as you said, is essentially a Libertarian position.

Bob responds: You just said above, attributing the words to me, “anti-goverment instead, which *as you said*, is essentially a Libertarian posiition.” Jean, when did I ever, ever in any one of my writings, ever say that the Libertarian position is anti-government? Do you realize you just quoted me as saying something that I never said? Not once. Please go back into any of my writings on this blog or anywhere and see where I have even once defined Libertarianism as being anti-government. You will never find it because I’ve never said it. {While, indeed there may be “fringe-type” Libertarians who’ve said or written that, I never have, nor have any of the mainstream Libertarians I’m in contact with.} I hope you will write back and acknowledge this as a fact.
And, just so you know, I’m not at all anti-government. I believe a Federal Government is necessary. It is necessary to protect our individual rights. It has two main legitimate functions, and that is to protect us (its citizens) from foreign invasion and from internal violence, which includes fraud. This is why there is a court system. And, of course, a case can be made for infrastructure and some other limited areas. As a Libertarian, I defined my philosophy in my previous response: “Everyone has a right to live their lives in whatever way they see fit providing they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.” Nowhere in there is there a mention of hating government. The desire to limit government to carrying out its legitimate Constitutional functions should not be confused with hate, and I don’t see where you got that or why you would put such words into my mouth.

Jean wrote: I disagree with your narrow definition of right wing and left wing. While both factions have some of the elements you mention I believe that right wing is more about supporting the traditional status quo which includes “moral’ values.

Bob: And it sounds as though both of us don’t want government involved in our moral values. Actually, I don’t mind their supporting it; I just don’t want them forcing it on anyone else.

Jean wrote: I believe left wing supports socicial change which allows people to indeed have equal access to “living their lives in whatever way they see fit providing they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.”

Bob: I believe we agree with that, as well. If you can name me one area, Jean, in which my position differs from the above, please inform me. Keep in mind though the point about not infringing upon anyone else’s rights. I’m all for supporting social change but I certainly don’t want anyone forcing that change on anyone else. If you believe in force then, yes, we disagree.

Jean wrote: We do indeed have our government (and yes, our taxes)…

Bob: I’m not against taxes in order for government to carry out their legitimate Constitutional functions.

Jean wrote: … to thank for many things such as police and fire protection,

Bob: Actually, those are not supposed to be federal issues, but state and local. But, that’s fine. I certainly agree with you.

Jean wrote:…transportation systems (roads), education,

Bob: Education. Is that something you are thankful to our federal government for? Do you feel they’ve done a good job with that? Are you glad that the education of your children and the children of this nation (including the poor) are in the hands of the federal government?

Jean wrote: …and hopefully, someday equal access to health care.

Bob: Jean, have you not read my articles on this topic? People (especially the poor) will *not* have equal access to health care. They will have equal access to a waiting list. That is different. How many people not getting needed care for months and months while they are dying will it take for one to understand that access to a waiting list is not the same as access to high quality medical care? (And please don’t attribute me as saying it will be everyone. That’s not what I’m saying. But it will be enough people, as it is now. Please read some of the letters I’ve received. They are heartbreaking. No one should have to go through this). This is an area in which I truly wish I could understand the feelings of those who endorse socialized medicine/universal health care. I mean, I know you must have a good, caring heart. Most advocates of socialized medicine do. So why would you choose a system that will be so harmful? Remember, it’s not a choice between socialized medicine and our current system. Our current system stinks because of all the government regulation and collusion with the major health care companies and big pharma. The key is to get it out of their hands and back into the hands of the market, where it used to work so well? Health care is too important to put into the hands of government and the special interests for which they stand.

Jean wrote: Government rules, regulations, and taxes are necessary sometimes to keep us safe and allow us to enjoy the quality of life and freedoms we value.

Bob: Of course. Absolutlely! But when government rules and regulations are bought and paid for by the corporations that want special advantages, then it is wrong. And such is the relationship to a very high degree. Do you really think the governement is the friend of the poor? You might as well say, “hey fox; there’s the hen-house, please guard it.”

Jean wrote: We obviously disagree.

Bob: After reading what I’ve written about, do you still feel we disagree to the same level? Is anything I’m saying making sense or causing you to re-explore Socialized Medicine or the function of government? Or, do we simply disagree?

Jean wrote: Yes, I do know that from time to time you venture into political philosophy in your blog. This particular blog was definitely in that category. After all, you entitled it “REALLY Want To Defeat Socialized Medicine? Then You’d Better “Change The Argument” – anyone who reads that title would know that a political position, not a lesson on persuasive speech will follow.

Bob: I think it was both. It was surely a political viewpoint. I also felt it was a good lesson in how to re-frame an argument. In the persuasion process, it is vital; it is key to set the frame, or premise correctly. I’ve discussed that in many previous articles. Do you not feel this article did the same? I mean, I thought I made that point but perhaps I was wrong.

Jean wrote: I generally find that distasteful, but it is your blog and you certainly have the right to say anything you wish just as I have the right to either disagree or not read it. I’ve followed your blog, and purchased and read/listened to your programs because I believe you have sound ideas about business and relationships. I do believe it alienates members of your audience when you venture away from that.

Bob: I appreciate your opinion and your taking the time to present your opinion. Thank you.

I disagree with your narrow definition of right wing and left wing. While both factions have some of the elements you mention I believe that right wing is more about supporting the traditional status quo which includes “moral’ values. I believe left wing supports socicial change which allows people to indeed have equal access to “living their lives in whatever way they see fit providing they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.” We do indeed have our government (and yes, our taxes) to thank for many things such as police and fire protection, transportation systems (roads), education, and hopefully, someday equal access to health care. Government rules, regulations, and taxes are necessary sometimes to keep us safe and allow us to enjoy the quality of life and freedoms we value.

We obviously disagree.

Yes, I do know that from time to time you venture into political philosophy in your blog. This particular blog was definitely in that category. After all, you entitled it “REALLY Want To Defeat Socialized Medicine? Then You’d Better “Change The Argument” – anyone who reads that title would know that a political position, not a lesson on persuasive speech will follow. I generally find that distasteful, but it is your blog and you certainly have the right to say anything you wish just as I have the right to either disagree or not read it. I’ve followed your blog, and purchased and read/listened to your programs because I believe you have sound ideas about business and relationships. I do believe it alienates members of your audience when you venture away from that.

Key point: I’m not right wing at all and, if you’ve read any of my other politically-based articles, you’d certainly know that. Right wing is typically associated with government being involved in a person’s morals and left wing with government being involved in a person’s finances. I don’t want government involved in either.

My Libertarian-based philosophy is simply that: “Everyone has a right to live their lives in whatever way they see fit providing they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same.

Do you disagree with that philosophy? If so, then it simply means we disagree. But to categorize me as right wing, left wing or…even “lord of the wings” I don’t believe is very productive.

Regarding your saying that I’ve alienated half of my blog audience; the numbers disagree with that statement, Jean. Again, because anyone who actually reads my posts knows that I’m not right or left wing. I simply believe that Liberty is the best answer. They also know that I don’t insult anyone else for their views while I express mine.

Thank you again for writing.