Comments (17) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   pschearer said, 5 months ago

   So anyone who is against even greater government intrusion into health care is like Archie Bunker: an ignorant racist fear-monger?

   I have to admire the boldness of this pre-emptive attack on those who oppose government take-over of health care, but it is a cowardly tactic to avoid facing the real issues.

   Too bad, because I usually admire Darrin Bell’s honesty even when I don’t agree.

2. 

   Chrisnp said, 5 months ago

   I don’t think Bell is saying anyone who opposes more government involvement in healthcare is an ignorant racist etc. I think he’s saying that certain powerful players who profit by the status quo are trying to spread fear rather than allow honest debate.

3. 

   ChuckTrent64 said, 5 months ago

   How can you consider something with which you disagree to be “honest”?

4. 

   Chrisnp said, 5 months ago

   How can you consider something with which you disagree to be “honest”?

   Why not? Honesty and disagreement are not mutually exclusive. I disagree with my wife all the time. She’s honest - just wrong.

5. 

   BrendanR said, 5 months ago

   Pschearer, when I hear conservatives on Fox News and Republican Congressmen constantly repeating “socialized medicine,” it strikes me as anachronistic fear-mongering. And that’s what yesterday and today have captured.

   The reason it’s fear-mongering: we’ve got plenty of socialism already. Some of it’s efficient, some of it isn’t. Medicare is socialist. Medicare is incredibly efficient. It wastes some money but it’s a lot less than what the private system wastes. The military is also socialist. The military is incredibly INefficient and incredibly wasteful, even John McCain believes that. But being “socialist” isn’t the problem, being wasteful is the problem.

   The reason Medicare is efficient and the military isn’t is because it’s socially acceptable to reign in Medicare practices, but most of us want the government to give the military whatever the military says it needs. When our leaders go after waste in Medicare, people consider them to be responsible pragmatists. But when our leaders go after waste in the Pentagon, their opponents attack them as being unpatriotic and anti-military.

   Calling it “socialized medicine” is fear-mongering meant to scare people into opposing something that may or may not work efficiently, because it skates over the efficiency debate in favor of focusing on ideology.

   And I think the point of the cartoon is that not only is it fear-mongering, but it isn’t as effective a tactic as it was a generation or so ago. I think it’s saying red-scare warnings of “socialism” won’t stir up a reflexive revulsion among today’s younger voters who grew up after the Cold War ended. Especially since “socialized medicine” DOES work in pretty much every other Western country (many of which have higher life expectancies than we do). I’ve heard a handful of horror stories about people in Canada who’ve been on waiting lists (always said as if that doesn’t happen here too), but if you ask pretty much any Canadian if they’d rather have our system, the answer would probably be “hell no.”

   The thing about Archie, he was often right when he described what was happening in the country, but he was always wrong to be so fearful about it. He was always letting ideology get in the way.

6. 

   headspot29 said, 5 months ago

   Public schools, the U.S. postal service, these are run by the government. Our taxes pay for these. This way everyone can get at least basic education and send mail. Simple as that. You want different service? Send your kids to private school or use UPS or Fedex. Run health care the same way. Have a government service for all and the ones who want a different plan from private companies pay for it.

7. 

   4deerinmyyard said, 5 months ago

   @ P. Schearer: “I have to admire the boldness of this pre-emptive attack on those who oppose [whatever]….” Yeah, ‘cause “Harry & Louise”, and Rush et al., would never consider stooping to rabble-rousing tactics, or framing a debate in prejudicial terms.

   @ AD-HD: Thanks for the intelligent defense of civil discussion.

   @ BRENDAN R!
   Wow! What you said! And how you said it!
   Clarity! Insight! Even-handedness! A moderate and courteous tone!

   Dang, dude, what the heck are you doing on a Ucomics comments forum?

8. 

   pilotx said, 5 months ago

   The hilarious part to me is that multi-multi millionaires get on the radio and the television machine and rail against publically funded healthcare while enjoying the best available care on the planet. With the exception of Ben Stein who made me like him when he stated everyone should have healthcare, even if it costs him a bit more in taxes. Now as far as Limbaugh and Hannity……..

9. 

   striper77 said, 5 months ago

   Here is a nice version of why Universal Healthcare will not work.

   Let’s say that you have just entered the medical field as a pediatrician. After eight years of schooling, and three years of gaining experience, you are a young, eager doctor who is ready to get started. However, you quickly discover that due to the ever-continuing line of patients, and the government’s upper hand in control you do not have flexible hours at all. You work day and night, as hard as you can but despite your greatest efforts, your yearly salary is too similar to the passionless doctor next door. You also notice that many times, the conditions of your young patients are rarely a case at all. But rather a mere concern their mother overreacted about.
   I believe Universal Healthcare for the United States is both impractical and undesirable.
   Establishing a Universal Healthcare system will reduce the quality and drive, as well as flexibility of our healthcare due to lack of competition.
   Also, will create a painful process to switch and lessen job opportunities, as well as piling on unnecessary responsibilities.
   And lastly, Universal Healthcare leads to many financial arguments.
   With competition comes determination, and with determination comes success. Without the persuasion of competition, the quality and flexibility of our healthcare will most likely not be as high, or lenient.
   I think everyone would agree that if you were a doctor, you would not try nearly as hard as your full capability if you would make around the same as any other doctor in your particular criteria. This is much like the quality and effort of your not-turned-in homework assignment, compared to your 100 point essay.
   When the government is involved with something, politics always seem to get into the decision-making. Various steps will have to be taken to keep costs of healthcare under control. Also, countless rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform however this increase will most likely be from the 15% of Americans without health insurance. 15% compared to 100%+ working with health insurance is just not comparable. Why take away millions of jobs from innocent people?
   With Universal Healthcare, America will see a loss of private practices, therefore possibly dissuading future doctors from further pursuing the career, another reason despite loss of flexibility and competitive pay that may decrease the interest and pursuit in obtaining a job in the medical field.
   Universal Healthcare will not only reduce the quality of our healthcare, but flexibility as well.
   Due to the ostensive line of people waiting to get medical attention, it is unlikely that doctors will have much flexibility in their schedule.
   But the problem with flexibility does not only effect doctors, but patients as well.
   -In Canada, where they have established Universal Healthcare, the average wait for a mere checkup is 7 months. Canadian patients sometimes offer additional money, or come to America to get their medical needs taken care of. -Also, since a visit to the doctor is free, many will take advantage and go to the doctor for even a simple cough or the common cold.
   -When you first look at it, Universal Healthcare seems to actually increase the flexibility of patients. Afterall, you are entitled to visit any doctor you desired since the government pays for everyone under one, universal plan. However, Universal Healthcare will also come with various tags. Will lasik eye surgery be covered? What about breast reduction for back problems? Or a nose job to fix a bump from a car accident? Medical procedures will come down to an argument for who qualifies under Universal Healthcare and who doesn’t. Whenever the government gets involved, attachments and loopholes are sure to follow, a complicated process, which brings me to my next point
   A Universal Healthcare system is a burden to the American people as well as the government in several ways, setting new responsibilities and problems that we are not subject to.
   As stated before, there will be an ongoing debate about what Universal Healthcare specifically covers.
   Also, the process to start Universal Healthcare will be a messy one with countless files, papers, more laws, obviously, more taxes, as well as new patient records.
   Universal Healthcare has no need for health insurance, therefore depleting the entire field. Also, many workers at the hospitals who dealt with insurance would lose their jobs. There is, of course the idea that more jobs will be created due to the higher demand for medical attention, however this increase will most likely be from the 15% of Americans without health insurance. 15% compared to 100%+ working with health insurance is just not comparable. Why take away millions of jobs from innocent people?
   And for my final point, Universal Healthcare isn’t really “free” in the first place, but rather expensive.
   We still have to pay for our medical bills with higher taxes, and possible spending cuts from other areas the government is involved in, such as defense or even education. What exactly is the point of taking away our health insurance bills, if the taxes rise by that much, and even possibly higher?
   Overall costs in healthcare will be several times of what they are now due to the fact that people will take advantage of Universal Healthcare. For ever ache, pain, or cough Americans will go to the doctor for what they normally could have just taken some pain relievers or medicine, wasting doctors’ time, other patients’ time, and wasting our money.
   With Universal Healthcare, you will pay a little more than the average health insurance- a small price to pay for the millions you cover, right? But is this fair that we have to pay extra taxes for someone else? Sure, Universal Healthcare will be extremely beneficial to the few who have extreme surgeries and illnesses. However, this is only hurting the perfectly healthy people who must pay for their neighbor’s flaws. And nobody wants to clean up someone else’s spilt milk.
   Universal Healthcare is both impractical and undesirable. Universal Healthcare will
   A. Decrease the quality, flexibility and drive due to the lack of competition in the medical field
   B. Be a painful and burdening process.
   C. And is an expensive, wasteful system.
   So the next time you decide whether or not Universal healthcare is a profitable idea, think about it; is it all really worth it?

10. 

    openminded said, 5 months ago

    SIGH

11. 

    deadheadzan said, 5 months ago

    striper77, you are simply repeating the propaganda of those that do not want health care reform. Re-read the very intelligent comments of those who have previously posted comments.

12. 

    treered said, 5 months ago

    if universal health care eliminates “pre-existing conditions”, i’m all for it! i think la mont would like it too….

13. 

    cthulhusgirl said, 5 months ago

    i think people should become doctors based on wanting to help others, not based on how much money they could possibly make.

14. 

    3hourtour said, 5 months ago

    …blah,blah,blah,funny,blah,blah,blah….

15. 

    pschearer said, 5 months ago

    There is much to respond to in this lively exchange. I’ll just point out that there is a fundamental gap between those who believe the purpose of government is to protect rights and those who believe its purpose is to solve problems, whatever they may be.

    In the first case government must be carefully limited so it does not itself become a violator of rights. In the second case, since there is no end of problems to be solved, there is no limit on the growth of government. In that case it is inevitable that government will end up violating rights, sacrificing the interests of one group for another. It makes no difference whether your preferred victim is doctors, lawyers, patients, taxpayers, whoever–the result is the same: government becomes a violator of rights.

    Any discussion of national health care needs to address the underlying question: what is the moral purpose of government? (The issues underlying that question, like what is the proper nature of society, are for another time.)

16. 

    pilotx said, 5 months ago

    The moral purpose of any government is to protect its citizens. IMHO does that include sick people being able to go to a doctor? Yes. If we can fight for my right to own a gun, we can fight for my right to go to a doctor. Priorities. A good compromise is a public option.

17. 

    Ira Nayman said, 4 months ago

    -In Canada, where they have established Universal Healthcare, the average wait for a mere checkup is 7 months.

    As a Canadian, I have to call bull on this. I have never had to wait more than two days to see my GP.

    
    
    • Canadian patients sometimes offer additional money, or come to America to get their medical needs taken care of.
    
    

    Sure. Rarely. But we don’t allow one seventh of our population to go without necessary medical attention because they can’t afford insurance. On balance, I’ll take our system, thanks.

    In fact, poll after poll shows that a large majority of Canadians are happy with our health care system. Although conservative politicians would love to privatize it, they don’t dare because they know it would take decades for citizens to forget and elect another one of them.

    By just about any measure (cost, how many people are covered, health outcomes like life expectancy and infant mortality) the public health system of Canada (and just about every other industrialized state) is better than that of the United States.

    American conservatives, do yourself a favour: if you have to oppose a public option for your health care system, do it on the costs or benefits to your country. Comparing it to other countries is a losing argument.