Red States and Rosier Views on U.S. Healthcare

Reader Comments
Back to blog

"This one is easy to figure out. The republicans who approve of our health -care system are the well-off who can afford health-care insurance, and who can afford to go to doctors."
I am conservative, I am unemployed, I don't have health insurance and I think that our healthcare system is the best on the face of the planet. At the same time, I also do things that help keep me from going to the hospital, such as trying to eat right, not smoking, hardly drinking, driving the speed limit and being aware of my surroundings while driving, trying to exercise, being careful when doing chores, etc. It is very easy to avoid going into the hospital, but it requires WORK.
For those of you who believe in universal healthcare, don't let the word "universal" fool you. Simply because it is universal does not mean that everyone will get the same access to healthcare. Universal healthcare will not prevent costs from increasing. It will not improve overall care. It will not guarantee innovation. And if you think that the government will not use some sort of "test" to help keep its cost down in providing healthcare, you have another thing coming. Just so you know, the Medicare trustee just said that funds to provide Medicare are fast drying up, and remember this is just a program that covers the elderly and those on Social Security. If you think the funds are fast drying up from just providing it for a small portion of our US population, just think how much faster it would dry up when you expand that coverage to cover all 320+ million US citizens (another thing liberals and Democrats leave out is that countries that provide universal coverage has lower population numbers than the US).

Chris of AZ 5:50PM March 25, 2008

I am retired and in good health. It takes 1/6 of our combined retirement and Social Security payments to pay the secondary insurance after Medicare. Something is wrong with our system. Part of it is the whole tort system. One surgeon I knew well retired early after losing a suit about a surgery that didn't go well. The patient knew the risks but refused to accept the outcome. That surgeon was the best one serving in that hospital. We all loose when good doctors leave the profession because of the cost of their insurance.

Stuart Wells of OH 3:47PM March 24, 2008

1, I save money by buying the health care I need for my family and myself. We also can afford catastrophic bills and never burden the taxpayer with emergency room bills. Why should we subsidize other people's smoking, drug use, obesity, premarital and risky sex, sexual inadequacy, loss of hair, loss of self-esteem, etc.?
The Census Bureau has the stats on the uninsured. 14 million are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP and have not signed up, 17 million earn over $50,000, 10 million earn over $75,000 and 8 million are uninsured for two years or more. Most of the uninsured are working and young and see health insurance as a bad deal and it is true. We need to change the tax code to put individuals on the same level as those who get insurance through their employer.
2. We lived in Canada and were horrified by the "lowest common denominator" national health care system, where it is ILLEGAL to "jump the queue" and pay for health care in Canada ahead of others, even if using your own money. Even PM Harper thought the national obsession with "equality" was absurd.
3. The US military health care is an example of centralized medical decision making, which precludes military members from seeking the best care. It nearly killed me decades ago until I went to a private practioner.
4. Years ago when my twins were born and I was in an HMO, the bills ran $500,000+. I offered a plan of hiring a nurse and taking them out of the hospital (they only were waiting for them to get to 4.5 pounds) to save the payor $200,000 but they said "they don't have a system to do that". Saving money is not in their goals.
5. Lawyers are much of the problem. Fix the tort system and you'll dramatically lower cost.

RD of WA 1:23PM March 24, 2008

For those who haven't experienced it first-hand, it's easy to fall in love with Britain's claimed "free" healthcare for all (now excluding dental care, care for the elderly, any treatment deemed too expensive for the government to fund; possibly to be extended to exclude treatment for smoking or weight related conditions soon) - up until you try actually getting care, facing year-plus waits for basic procedures, or simply being denied care entirely, on cost grounds alone. Recent cancer treatments, for example, are withheld as 'too expensive'; if you develop macular degeneration, which causes blindness unless treated, you can only get treatment for the *second* eye - you're required to lose the sight in the other one on cost grounds, because saving the sight of one eye is considered too expensive for the government to fund when the other eye still works. (The price, if you're interested, is about $60k, pro-rated for non-deadly conditions: losing the use of one eye is considered something like 10% of your life, so treatments costing over about $6k are excluded. Of course, being government-run, you might still get treatment if you're well connected to politicians or you can get media attention involved.)
The French system is certainly better than the British one - but even there, I don't need to think back too far to remember a summer when many patients died in French hospitals because they were too cheap to install air conditioning - leaving their patients to die from the heat. Lovely.
The US system is expensive and makes everyone except the elderly (Medicare) and the very poor (Medicaid) pay their fair share, which some people struggle with; the UK system is cheap and denies people care on cost grounds even when they DO have that "insurance". Speaking as someone with a job, I'd take the US system over the UK one any day. Neither is perfect - but where the US system is only at its worst for the bottom 16%, the UK is that bad for the bottom 80% instead.
Both systems could certainly be improved - simply cutting costs and prices in the US would make a big difference, while the UK's problems are much harder - but don't for one second fall into the trap of thinking other countries are perfect or should be copied!

James 3:40AM March 23, 2008

People shouldn't offer opinions before they've got their facts straight. The health care in most other countries is abominable. Dying people wait for months to be seen. In America it's not always perfect, but what is?
Those who denigrate America have no sense of appreciation. Traitorous public expressions are best ignored by those with more sense. Your Eclectic Painter

Ann Kahl of PA 6:26PM March 22, 2008

As your colum head hints, breakdown of opinion would be more enlightening if correlated to income level, and source of / lack of health insurance, as well as political affiliation, perhaps reflecting on the "rosiness" of some outlooks.

Bob Carbaugh of PA 6:19PM March 22, 2008

Republicans tend to be pretty well off, and they DO have Cadillac health insurance plans... so they're happy. But the rest of us have to deal with often crowded public facilities and long waits to see specialists, etc. and make decisions based on what it will cost us. So we want more uniform care delivery such as in Canada, France or the UK; and these countries DO have better outcomes overall. If you have money, you can get anything you want, but we all need healthcare and it should be available to all regardless of their ability to pay.

Sandra Clark of MN 5:37PM March 22, 2008

The U.S. system creates the lion's share (that is almost all) of the new drugs, equipment, and procedures that are advancing health care for humanity. This is the result of our capitalist system. It is no wonder that those who actually pay taxes (republicans) are happy with the knowledge that we have the best health care opportunities, while those who are looking for government to redistribute the wealth of the rich (democrats) are disappointed that they are not given free health care along with all of the other entitlements they have grown acccustomed to. Those who understand the extremely long wait for and limited availability of elective procedures in socialized medical systems, as well as the tax burden on those who pay taxes (republicans) appreciate the advantages of our system.

DanDetroit of MI 5:37PM March 22, 2008

That's because many Republicans are living in a fantasy bubble, where the US is tops in education, healthcare, human rights, etc, always has been and most importantly - always will be. The reality is that among "industrialized" nations we are near the bottom in most categories. Wealthy? Absolutely. The best? Not quite. People will have to learn to step outside of their own bubble, where in fact they may have the best education, healthcare, and human rights, and see that it does not extend fairly or equally to all Americans. It's not defeatist to recognize that we may actually have to work to maintain our present status, forget being the best for a moment.
They are basically saying that they don't care what other approaches are successful, they want to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to those, and continue on the same path. Now obviously, there's nothing wrong with pride and self-respect to a certain extent, but when it drives your actions and shrouds you in ignorance that is always negative. The very concept of our government and constitution were European ideas. We are a nation that throughout its history has been consistently infused with immigrants and their ideas. Now it is something to be ashamed of if we implement foreign successes and philosophy? How foolish.

Ben of FL 5:05PM March 22, 2008