Political Punch

Regarding universal healthcare, the Los Angeles Times published an article by Michael Tanner (director of health and welfare studies) and Michael Cannon (director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute) back on April 5, 2007. In it they write:

"...there's a big difference between universal coverage and actual access to medical care."

"Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment."

"Supporters of universal coverage fear that people without health insurance will be denied the healthcare they need. Of course, all Americans already have access to at least emergency care. Hospitals are legally obligated to provide care regardless of ability to pay..."

Be very careful what you wish for! Should the federal government ever fully implement universal healthcare there are three very important things to worry about: (1) You cannot sue the federal government unless IT gives you the authorization. And that would mean that you would be unable to file medical malpractice claims once the federal government controls medical decisions; (2) Right now every individual has the right to refuse medical treatments and procedures. That right could easily be stripped away; (3) Will the practice of euthanasia (voluntary and involuntary) be far behind?

Wait, you included a link to a NYPost article as a compelling factcheck? Perhaps we should follow this up with examinations by such public intellectuals as Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. O'Reilly.

Spocks description of socialized medicine show his ignorance on the subject. Canada's health care system is thriving, and the federal and provicial governments have all been running budget surpluses for more than ten years. So where are we going broke? Universal health care is a fact of life in most of the developed world. Its better than tax cuts for the rich and it does a body good. Come in out of the dark "spocky" you run the risk of living in a third world country.

chuck - first Bloomberg is not a moderate he is a lib. He change parties to ride on Rudy's coattails.

As for Sicko - the only truth behind it is the name of the movie is what Michael Moore is.

Anyone who supports Socialized (Universal) Health care, should look at Europe and Canada, both systems are going broke, no care at all. Goverment deciding on who lives and who dies. Oh by the way Castro's Doctor was flown in from France, he was not a Cuban doctor.

There is only about 3 million American Citizens without healthcare. So an answer would be to only subsidize for the 3 million if needed. 95% of jobs offer Health insurance.

Tapper, you should see Sicko. However, when you do please do not report back. Your writing is bad and your humor worse.

Please pardon the second posting, but I believe that Mayor Bloomberg's announcement today deserves special attention and notice. To commemorate this event, I've cobbled together this tribute, sung to the tune of "Bye-bye, Blackbird:" "He’s packed up all his cares and woes./Where he goes,/Not even Cheney knows!/Bye-bye, Bloomberg!/There’s no future in the GOP/
For moderates like him./Can’t you see?/
Bye-bye, Bloomberg!/The GOP won’t love or understand him,/But, what d’ya expect from such a bunch of goyim?/
D.C.’s ready and lights all lit,/
He’ll get there, bit by bit./Bloomberg, bye-bye!"

With all the talk of global warming being the issue of our lifetime, I beg to differ. The persistent looming health care crisis is by far the biggest issue facing Americans.

Another great caricature, Jake! Richard Roeper, of "Ebert & Roeper," offers the best and most concise analysis that I've yet seen into Michael Moore's character and films in his column in today's "Chicago Sun-Times": "Michael Moore doesn't make documentaries. He is a performance artist, working in the medium of nonfiction film."

Mr. Moore's critics, of which there are many, I'm sure, always seem to make the mistake of trying to outflank him on facts and figures and trying to undermine the polemics in his films by claiming bias and unfair treatment. What they don't realize is that his films ARE biased and unfair--he's trying to convince us that he's right on whatever issue he's tackling. As Richard Roeper continues in his column today, "He [Michael Moore] is the millionaire everyman. He is also a passionate advocate, a quick wit and a brilliant filmmaker who relies on extensive but favorable-to-his-viewpoint research, biased editing and a dazzling array of visual and narrative tricks to drive home his point of view." Not only will the film be worthwhile to watch, but the reactions of both admirers and critics will be equally worthwhile to watch!

And as for Sen. Clinton's campaign song, it seems quite fitting that it previously served as background music to an airline commercial. I suspect she'll lose many votes because of her choice of this annoying, cloying, trite song. Wasn't "Timbaland" free to do some recording for her?

re Bloomberg, nice quantitative analysis. I'm sure many individuals have had it with partison bickering. But are they so fed up that they are willing to buck the establishment? 8 years of fear mongering isn't going to go away overnight. In the last analysis, a third party vote is an anti-establishment vote, and I'm not sure if people are bold enough to go there, post 9/11. But best wishes to Bloomy. He's got a couple hundred mil to spare. Go for it.

the huff po piece is a head scratcher. Railing against porn is pretty low on the conservative agenda, if it's even there at all.