« Sunday Funnies - intentional or not | Main | School Board supports sexual assault »

October 15, 2007

Nationalized medicine in America

The hysteria of those who support the pimping of Graeme Frost, including the outright lying shennigans of Nancy Pelosi on the Sunday shows demonstrate the push of the Left towards nationalization of medicine in America. Whatever the motive, from ill-conceived ideas of medicine as a "right" to naked power-grab, the results won't be just in the degradation of quality of service. What it will also do is move the education of members of the medical professions under those that hold that medicine is not only a "right" but that it is part of a larger picture ... that of one of "social justice." It isn't hard to imagine when the example of the current education of social workers is so readily available.

In 1997, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) adopted a surreptitious political agenda in the form of a new code of ethics, enjoining social workers to advocate for social justice "from local to global levels." A widely used textbook -- "Direct Social Work Practice: Theory and Skill" -- declares that promoting "social and economic justice" is especially imperative as a response to "the conservative trends of the past three decades." Clearly, in the social work profession's catechism, whatever social and economic justice are, they are the opposite of conservatism.

The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), the national accreditor of social work education programs, encourages -- not that encouragement is required -- the ideological permeation of the curricula, including mandatory student advocacy. The CSWE says students must demonstrate an ability to "understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination."

As far as I know, accounting students are not required by their professors to lobby legislators or be disciplined. Engineering students are not required to be pro-abortion or find themselves kicked out of the schools of engineering. Even law students aren't subjected to professors adamently declaring that The Law is a liberal profession.

But "social work" has become an American, taxpayer-supported program more in line with old Soviet programs that brook no idea that doesn't follow the correct [left] political faith.

What makes anyone believe, once it is finally nationalized as Pelosi and Reid dream, that the education of "healthcare workers" will be any different?

Technorati: Graeme Frost, Universal Healthcare, , ,

Posted by Darleen at October 15, 2007 06:48 AM

Comments

"The CSWE says students must demonstrate an ability to 'understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination'."

Oh, I get it. Irony! Good one, CSWE!

Posted by: Stephen at October 15, 2007 08:03 AM

Yes, Mz Darleen, but I don’t see anyone demanding that Medicare and Medicaid be abolished. No politician is making such an argument. The trends are moving in favor of greater nationalization of health care.

This is going to be a mixed blessing, but on balance it will be a good thing.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at October 15, 2007 08:41 AM

The degradation of quality of service? Girl - that means you HAVE service in the first place.
I'm green with envy.

Posted by: Erin at October 15, 2007 09:01 AM

Darleen,

What I don't get is why you aren't upset by the smearing of Graeme Frost's family by Michelle Malkin and others -- who have also posted outright lies and distortions. I guess if you're on the Right it's OK to smear, but HEAVEN FORFEND that a Leftist should mount a defense.

The sooner we have a national health care system the better.

Posted by: Brad at October 15, 2007 10:39 AM

Nationalized health care will remove the vital profit incentives from what is the finest healthcare delivery system in the world. To claim its demise is inevitable if a threat to the health of all Americans, particulary those who cannot afford healthcare.


Graeme Frost's parents are dupes and idiots to allow there son to be foist on the public as he is. I pity the poor boy.

Here's some first hand advice for the parents:

I'm self employed, a one man shop consulting practice.

I can insure my family for $599 per month, $2,500 deductible, $30 prescription co pay and $35 office visit co pay. No pregnancy.

I can access the finest health care system in the world and choose my own providers for $600 per month. Not cheap...but worth every penny of it. The high deductible forces me to choose wisely and become involved in the healthcare delivery process.

This is not rocket science people. For another $100 a month I can insure against most all catastrophic events.

This cost is much more sustainable when a person makes wise choices. That's why I drive a seven year old automobile that is paid for. No installment debt for TV's, electronics and appliances.

This is the classic conservative/liberal debate that is ultimately defined by personal choice and decision making. The Dems foisted this poor couple on the American public, and predictably, many of us living within our means started to ask the same tough questions that we asked ourselves before. Drive a new car or pay for health insurance? Watch a new HD TV or pay for health insurance? BTW, scholarships at private school only cover tuition. The "extras" amount to out of pocket thousands per year.

I grieve the injury of their children in an accident. Anyone with children worries about this. That is why it is imperative that parents without employer plans should prepare carefully

The government funded third party payer system has done much to undermine excellent healthcare in this nation.

Posted by: HughS at October 15, 2007 03:34 PM

And don't forget to toss a nickel or two into Darlene's cup, she has to send her daughter to college.

But nobody is asking for a handout, are they?

Posted by: Luther at October 15, 2007 10:36 PM

Hugh - I just want to be certain that I understand the terms of your health policy, and have some questions:

- You're currently paying $7,200/year. How long have you had this policy? What were the costs when you started it? What were the costs last year? have next year's rates been announced? How many people are covered? What are their ages? Are there any excluded pre-existing conditions? Have you made any claims? Do any/all of the people covered get routine physical exams, immunizations, etc. under the policy?

- You say 'no pregnancy.' Is that an issue - i.e., is there a female covered who's childbearing age who might become pregnant? Yourself? Spouse/partner? Other? Are contraceptives covered in your presecription plan?

- You say you can insure against "most all catastrophic events" for another $1,200/year (which brings the annual cost to $8,400). What does your current plan consider 'catastrophic?'

It would be helpful to understand where you live (urban/rural, geographic region), because of the effects of location on health care costs.

Obviously, these are intrusive questions, and I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't answer all (or any) of them.

But my point is the same, whether or not you choose to supplement your initial information:

- an insurance policy doesn't help much if it doesn't cover what's likely to happen, or if it falls short in the event of the kind of accident that affected the Frosts.
- an insurance policy's price seldom stays the same - one of the most common complaints from employers is the rate at which insurance costs have risen; and rising costs are often cited as the reason for individuals discontinuing coverage (particularly after a claim is filed).
- healthcare in this country is the most expensive in the world.

A serious car accident, or a cancer diagnosis, can send even those of us who thought we were well-insured right over the edge into financial ruin.

Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at October 16, 2007 05:33 AM

Sorry, but I'd rather shell out for the neighbor kid's health insurance than for your kid's college. Bye.

Posted by: Action Jackson at October 16, 2007 06:25 AM

Brad

You assert "smear". Please prove your assertions with evidence.

Understand that a smear is NOT the inconvenient airing of uncomfortable facts.

When Harry Reid's staffers sent out the call "get us a crippled kid to mouth our words" and the Parents Frost decided to get in on making the hapless Graeme a human shield, then the FACTS of how their own irresponsibility, past and present, are germaine to the issue.

Revealing that John Kerry was NOT in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 was NOT a smear.

Posted by: Darleen at October 16, 2007 06:33 AM

Luther, Action Jackson

You do know the difference between "voluntary" and "involuntary" now don't you?

Posted by: Darleen at October 16, 2007 06:34 AM

RWS

It's not a perfect analogy but I'd argue that much of the problems of high healthcare costs in America are due to overregulation

What do you think would be the cost of your auto insurance if:

There was a government granted monopoly to an association that both certified mechanics, certified mechanic schools and deliberately limited the number of both in the US.

That government policies favored employer provided auto insurance and even in some places demanded that employers provide auto insurance.

That government policies mandated auto insurance also include coverage for oil changes, tire rotation, and all sorts of "auto health care" maintenance programs.


Why do a lot of young healthy people choose to fly without a net? Because they'd rather pay cash out-of-pocket for occassional office visits ($60-80 a couple times a year) than hundreds of dollars a month for the benefit of a $20 co-pay.

Nationalized medicine that will in essense make doctors and nurses "healthcare workers" on par with "social workers" is a disaster.

Would you like to see doctors and nurses required to participate in abortions or be kicked out? How about required to lobby legislators to demand the right to euthanize disable infants or infirm seniors? Should people who don't fit the "proper health maintence" paradigms be refused even routine health care (such as the guy who has had a broken ankle for a couple of years in England because he's a smoker and the government medical care won't fix it unless he stops smoking)

And most importantly, who is the government to tell nurses and doctors that their labor doesn't belong to them?

Posted by: Darleen at October 16, 2007 06:48 AM

"much of the problems of high healthcare costs in America are due to overregulation."

Do you have any evidence/data to support this statement, or are you speculating?

Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at October 16, 2007 07:24 AM

Rightwingsnarkle
You're right, I won't answer those questions but can offer this:


I found it all on the internet, just recently purchased it and do not have a spouse on the policy but have myself and three children under 13.
You are correct that a catastrophic event can ruin a person financially. But you should search out all options for your family including catastrophic coverage and cancer coverage. You can raise the deductible on a plan like mine to $5,000 and afford additional "special event" coverage.
Pre existing conditions are not covered. Why should they be? If they were covered it wouldn't be insurance, it would be welfare.

Posted by: HughS at October 16, 2007 11:43 AM

Hi, Hugh.

Based on your most recent comment: it's a new policy (so you have no cost history with this plan); and the lack of pregnancy coverage doesn't seem to be an issue in your situation.

The big caveat here is that the initial cost of this policy, which seems acceptable to you right now, could dramatically escalate - as soon as in your second year, or in subsequent years.

I'm also curious about what exactly is covered, (and to what limits), and what's not covered at all. Again, I'm not probing into your private matters so much as I'm raising some general questions about health insurance that go far beyond an initial monthly premium for the first year of coverage.

I bet you probably came across any number of questionable, and flat out awful, health insurance options in the course of your search.

Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at October 16, 2007 01:19 PM

I just found this snippet about health insurance costs from John Derbyshire at NRO.

Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at October 16, 2007 02:17 PM

"I just found this snippet about health insurance costs from John Derbyshire at NRO.":

Insurance is a risk management tool...he should hedge that risk. Ask him the same questions you asked me. When he doesn't answer them, tell him to rasie his deductible.

Posted by: HughS at October 16, 2007 07:28 PM

Hugh's attitude is that getting health insurance coverage is no big deal. The implied attitude is that 47 million Americans who are uninsured are just dumb, or lazy.

No consideration for Americans who are denied coverage for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with "pre-existing conditions." Obviously he hasn't seen the testimonials in "Sicko," or read Jill Quadagno's book "One Nation, Uninsured."

No consideration for skyrocketing premiums.
No consideration for the hundreds of millions the health care indiustry spends on lobbyists.

So we have the "finest health care" in the world and yet Americans don't even live as long as Europeans?

Meanwhile, Darleen's smug attitude is that a smear is not a smear as long as "facts" are asserted. Then why has the Senate Majority leader sworn off Michelle Malkin's assertions?

Let me ask you this Darleen: do you consider it a smear when someone posts this comment about the Frost family on Redstate.com: Let 'em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens. Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice." ???


Did you consider Teri Schiavo a human shield, Darleen?

Posted by: Brad at October 16, 2007 07:45 PM

Geez Brad

A site is responsible for all its commenters right?

So when a commenter on Media Matters sez

I have to say that I believe this nation, this world, and everything in it would be far better off if there was a button I could push that would END the life of every avowed “CONSERVATIVE”, “REPUBLICAN”, or “RIGHT-WINGER”.

Yes, that's a smear right along with the idiot on Redstate. Smears that contained no fact, just indecent invective.

WHAT smear did Malkin do on Graeme?

Schiavo was put to death in a manner that may become all too common under nationalized healthcare.

Posted by: Darleen at October 16, 2007 08:08 PM

yet Americans don't even live as long as Europeans?

you really are either stupid or disengenuous, aren't you.

Posted by: Darleen at October 16, 2007 08:11 PM

Brad
Your last comment is most telling. You're more concerned about profits in the healthcare indusry than actual insurance coverage for people.

The rest of your points are equally obtuse. Using a Michael Moore movie as a reference point is laughable.

Posted by: HughS at October 17, 2007 06:13 AM

Do Americans live as long as Europeans?

The World Health Organization (WHO) and other national and international agencies collect and analyze statistics on such health indicators as life expectancy at birth, infant mortality, cause of death, etc.

The latest figures from the 2006 revision of the United Nations World Population Prospects report indicates that Japan leads the world in average overall life expectancy, at 82.6 years (men = 79 years, women = 86.1). Swaziland (landlocked within South Africa) is last at 39.6 years overall. Most other countries at the bottom of the list, and below the world overall average of 67.2 years are in Africa, due in large part to the high incidence of HIV/AIDS in many African countries.

People living in Iceland, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, France, Italy, Norway, Austria, Netherlands, Greece, Belgium, Malta, U.K., Germany, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Denmark have higher overall life expectancies than the U.S.

People living in South Korea, the U.A.E, Canada, Hong Kong, Australia, Israel, New Zealand, Singapore, and Cuba also have higher life expectancies than the U.S.

There's more to explore here, if you wish.

Life expectancy is just one public health indicator. Infant mortality rates (deaths before age 1 per 1,000 live births) is another.

While the U.S. figure of 6.4/1,000 is far below rates in the developing world that exceed 150/1,000 (0.64% vs. ~15%), we have one of the highest rates among developed/industrialized countries. Many of the same countries cited above have better rates. Japan's rate of 3.2/1,000 is bested only by Hong Kong (2.9), Sweden (2.8), and Singapore (2.3).

What's the model for health care access, delivery, and financing in the countries that have the highest life expectancies and lowest rates of infant mortality?

Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at October 17, 2007 09:54 AM

"What's the model for health care access, delivery, and financing in the countries that have the highest life expectancies and lowest rates of infant mortality?".....what amount of US healthcare technology do they utilize?

Let's make this simple Brad: Erase the innovation component of US healthcare from the world economy and tell us what that model looks like.

Big pharma, privately funded healthcare research (from the profits of the private companies) and the INCUMBENT healthcare delivery system here in the US establish and deliver the standard of excellence foreign entities now enjoy.

The R&D infrastructure in the US university sytem alone is unsurpassed and will never be replicated anywhere. No country has enough money to even attempt it.

Admit it...you want to socialize medicine. Socialization has failed in every situation it has been attempted.

Do you want better healthcare for all? Start by reading some of the Austrian economists...Hayek, Mises. You may learn something.

Posted by: HughS at October 17, 2007 04:48 PM

Hugh - It looks like you may have mixed something that I said/asked with a response you wanted to make to Brad.

My original question still stands - "What's the model for health care access, delivery, and financing in the countries that have the highest life expectancies and lowest rates of infant mortality?"

It's an important question.

There are many other health indicators worth examining, like the availability and use of preventive measures (vaccinations, screening) and health education; along with the prevalence of behaviors and activities that promote health.

It's useful to assess these indicators in the context of the health delivery systems that they operate in.

With regard to your comments about research, and the U.S. role - I agree with you, that the U.S. has played, and continues to play, an important role in moving things forward on many fronts.

I'm directly familiar with this phenomenon because I work in one of the leading university and multi-institutional centers in the world for the development of health care tools and technologies.

Building the tools is one part of the puzzle. Putting them into play is another.

I'd like to hear the factual basis for your comment, "Socialization (of medicine) has failed in every situation it has been attempted." I don't think that statement can hold up to any scrutiny.

Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at October 17, 2007 05:54 PM

Darlene

"Luther, Action Jackson

You do know the difference between "voluntary" and "involuntary" now don't you?"

Well....

The current arguement is that those who want a National Healthcare system or in fact use an existing plans are asking for a handout and if they made better descions they wouldn't need it.

Now do you see the irony? Quit blogging and get a real job(s) so your kids can go to college.

Posted by: scratch at October 17, 2007 06:30 PM

As far as life expectancy, when you are a nation of immigrants your median life expectancy is going to be the average of all countries and ethnicities you admit to your country.

Your argument is bogus.

If Japan suddenly let millions of foreigners immigrate to their country from Africa, South America and other countries with high infant mortality and low life expectancy, their average life expectancy would go down.

That argument is a total straw man, so give it up.

Posted by: Digger at October 17, 2007 07:35 PM

Digger,
No, YOUR argument is bogus. Europe has more immigrants per capita than America, and they live longer than we do. Admit it, your comment is a racist non sequitur.

Hugh,

I'll read Hayek if you'll see Sicko.

It's also revealing that you bring up Big Pharma, since they are part of the problem. Even the New England Journal of Medicine will no longer publish reviews of studies by authors who have ties to the drug industry. So-called consulting fees from Big Pharma are so pervasive that in any given medical field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the industry. And do you think the "standard of excellence" from all this research is what's driving up costs or could it be the lawsuits from families of victims of Pharma's products. Vioxx ring a bell?

The R&D infrastructure in the US university sytem alone is unsurpassed and will never be replicated anywhere

That's changing too, because the U.S. is falling behind other countries in math and science education. In a generation you will be eating your words, Hugh.

Do you really think our health insurance system is working? I'm waiting for Darleen to smear Bethany Wilkerson.

Posted by: Brad at October 17, 2007 07:59 PM

Digger - do you have any specific data or analysis to support your point that U.S. mortality figures are skewed for the reason you cite, or are you speculating?

Also, the figures I drew on reference average (or mean), and not median. Mean is a better indicator than median in these instances.

Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at October 18, 2007 07:37 AM

So I guess that this discussion is over?

Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at October 20, 2007 01:04 PM

QWQAesV cool site!!! [url=http://moulddni1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://moulddni2.com VoUrtyrQ

Posted by: moulddni at October 31, 2007 06:11 PM