Posted by Tina
The unimaginative, controlling, destructive, and wasteful approach this nation has taken to “affordable healthcare for all” has now become a sorry joke that will only become more destructive as it is unfolds. There is a better way that involves less government involvement, more competition in the private sector, and the marvel of innovation. Israel has introduced new technology that will drastically improve the way we treat patients…follow the link for video.
Side note: Do watch the ad that appears before the video…it’s hilarious…and its a real product!
The groundwork that paved the way for this amazing innovation was Israels defense technology.
The American people will benefit greatly from this amazing technology. The free countries of the world have made possible many such breakthroughs which have served to uplift the health and prosperity of people all around the globe. The best contribution our government can make is to enact policies that support private innovation and strong defense of our nation and of freedom in the world. Prosperity follows when nations are freed of dictatorial government and with prosperity comes good jobs.
We now have a group of leaders in Washington with a very different vision. They believe that government should manage and control the private sector and that private sector dollars are best utilized when funneled through the federal government. This model calls for huge bureaucratic expense and high taxation. As we have seen with the Affordable Care Act (Is that a misnomer or what!), government’s ability to deliver an affordable product misses the mark and is extremely costly and wasteful. I believe one of the reasons is that the available funding is made possible through a never ending funnel of tax dollars and borrowing with no need to be accountable or responsible and because the temptation to award cash to friends and supporters outweigh the priorities that work.
Israel’s amazing new breakthrough technology will make it possible to treat major health problems without the expense of long procedures, invasive surgery, or expensive chemical treatments that can do great harm.
Obammie would tell the man in the video “You didn’t build that.” Then Obammie would make him buy an Obammiecare health plan (or face penalties, of course).
Oh wow, this is fantastic and it exist today. All types of surgery can be done without cutting the body.
Thank you Israel and the free market system. There was a list going around that gave all of the inventions done by Israel and America I wonder if one exist for communist or Islamic countries? It would be interesting to see and compare.
“Health care in Israel is universal and participation in a medical insurance plan is compulsory.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Israel
Jim, thank you–I was just about to point that out. Really, neither of us should have had to. It is common knowledge that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation without universal healthcare.
Milton Friedman was right on “universal healthcare.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfx94h-oNYM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJgbc8ojYUg&list=PLFFAE6071520CD942
Chris (and Jim) I knew I could expect this response when I posted the article. But there is a slight flaw in your assumption that because the rest of the industrialized world has universal healthcare it is the best way to go. The flaw is American strength.
The rest of the world, at least since WWII, has always been able to rely on America for its strong defense capability. They have also relied on the US for foreign aid. They have relied on America for emergency assistance, the bulk of funding for the U.N., charitable donations to various causes and food…shiploads of food…when people are starving. (We were feeding The Russians before the wall came down.)
They could rely on America because we are (were) an economic powerhouse. Our largesse and leadership made it possible for other countries to spend their money on healthcare and less on defense.
The thing that made the US an economic powerhouse was freedom, the absence of excessive government intrusion, and capitalism.
We’ve been headed toward a socialist model since 1920 or so. Obama is fast forwarding now and destroying capitalism. He’s destroying our wealth along with the (once) vast middle class. The socialist blows he’s inflicted have been on on healthcare, banking, and energy and with extensive QE he’s creating the groundwork for mass inflation.
The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money, as Margaret Thatcher famously said. Socialism is destroying prosperity, or the chance for prosperity for the average citizen all over the world; Obama has pushed America into that same sour soup.
Who will pay for all of this marvelously free healthcare? As I posted a few days ago, one well respected economist tells us the real unemployment rate is over 30% in America and much higher for minorities and the young. Five years with a pretty hard core socialist in office and we are not doing well at all.
Our readers should also take note that this technology evolved out of Israels defense technology…that would be most likely a technology that American tax dollars supported. Israel is the one nation that I’m aware of that actually uses our tax dollars and returns the favor with breakthroughs like this that not only help us defend America but also to better care for our sick.
Tina your response nailed it. America has tried to be the foster parent to the world while letting it’s own “children” go without. If we hadn’t spent so much to fight other countries wars and spent the money to protect and provide for Americans we’d be like Switzerland with their high ranking life style and position of neutrality while still serving the world through humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross.
The Swiss according Wikipedia used our Constitution to develop their form of government they simply took steps to insure their citizens were safe and provided for instead of trying to save the world’s population.
From Wikipedia.
“The establishment of the Swiss Confederation is traditionally dated to 1 August 1291, which is celebrated annually as Swiss National Day. It has a long history of armed neutrality—it has not been in a state of war internationally since 1815—and did not join the United Nations until 2002. It pursues, however, an active foreign policy and is frequently involved in peace-building processes around the world.[8] Switzerland is also the birthplace of the Red Cross and home to a large number of international organizations, including the second largest UN office. On the European level, it is a founding member of the European Free Trade Association and is part of the Schengen Area – although it is notably not a member of the European Union, nor the European Economic Area.
Switzerland has the highest wealth per adult (financial and non-financial assets) in the world according to Credit Suisse and eighth-highest per capita gross domestic product on the IMF list.[11][12] Swiss citizens have the second-highest life expectancy in the world on UN and WHO lists. Switzerland has the top rank in Bribe Payers Index indicating very low levels of business corruption. Moreover for the last five years the country has enjoyed highest economic and tourist competitiveness according to Global Competitiveness Report and Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report respectively, both developed by the World Economic Forum. Zürich and Geneva have been ranked among cities with highest quality of life in the world with the former coming second globally according to Mercer.[13]
Federal State:
Thus, while the rest of Europe saw revolutionary uprisings, the Swiss drew up a constitution which provided for a federal layout, much of it inspired by the American example. This constitution provided for a central authority while leaving the cantons the right to self-government on local issues. Giving credit to those who favoured the power of the cantons (the Sonderbund Kantone), the national assembly was divided between an upper house (the Swiss Council of States, 2 representatives per canton) and a lower house (the National Council of Switzerland, representatives elected from across the country). Referenda were made mandatory for any amendment of this constitution.[25]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland
I’d love to see us secure our borders, increase our legal immigration process to let those who want to live free by our laws, build up our military defense and let anyone know if they mess with us we will use all of our powers against them.
Utopian dream maybe, but saving a drowning person without insuring your own survival is suicidal.
Tina: “The rest of the world, at least since WWII, has always been able to rely on America for its strong defense capability…They could rely on America because we are (were) an economic powerhouse. Our largesse and leadership made it possible for other countries to spend their money on healthcare and less on defense.
The thing that made the US an economic powerhouse was freedom, the absence of excessive government intrusion, and capitalism…
…We’ve been headed toward a socialist model since 1920 or so.”
I’m really curious. How do you manage to write such glaring contradictions without seeming to notice them? Is there a class you had to take?
First you say that America has been an economic powerhouse since WWII. Then you say this is because of capitalism (which you define in opposition to socialism). Then you say we have slowly been leaning toward socialism since 1920.
How can all three of those things be true? If we were more capitalist and less socialist before 1920, and if capitalism, not socialism, is what creates economic powerhouses, how is it possible that we became an economic powerhouse only twenty years after our country started embracing more socialism?
Do you see how you totally invalidated your own argument? If we started embracing socialism in 1920, and if socialism is so economically destructive, than our country would have been worse off, not better off, after 1920. Right?
You’re simply not making any sense.
Peggy: “Thank you Israel and the free market system.”
This is simply an amazing comment. Isreal does not have free market healthcare.
And now you’re saying America should be more like Switzerland? I mean, I agree, but you realize you’re praising a socialist country, right?
The “Affordable Healthcare Act” has to win the prize for the LEAST descriptive name for a piece of legislation ever!
Better to be Actual Healthcare Atrocity!
LOL J. You are right on the money with that one but…let’s close the loop on this thang.
The original bill, the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA) was celebrated, admired and voted into law by all the Democrats but now that its rolling out it’s sending “Patients” to the “Poorhouse” because of it’s an “Actual Healthcare Atrocity” 😀
No wonder the PP was dropped.
The Swiss might disagree. According to
this site Switzeraln “has a long republican tradition”:
Another site describes Switzerland formally as a “Confederation” but that is similar in structure to a “federal republic”:
Chris you might want to watch how you toss that word “socialist” around as if it were interchangeable with other all forms of government…as in “we’re all socialists now”.
I met a woman who was from Switzerland. She had some of the same concerns for her county of origin that we at Post Scripts have for ours so it is quite possible that they have moved more toward a socialist model.
Israel’s universal system was established by the British when the nation was formed following WWII in 1947-8.
Israel’s quality healthcare system can be attributed to the fact that they are culturally dedicated to service and highly educated.
Their state/private run system continues to face funding and shortage problems like other nations experience. Some of their recent problems can be attributed to the mess we have made in Syria.
Researchgate.net
Haaretz
Chris you love to praise the socialist healthcare models of other nations but you do so without acknowledging the problems that plague these systems.
The utopia of perfect universal coverage that you imagine doesn’t fit the reality.
At the same time your side has exaggerated problems in our country and avoided simple solutions in favor of a more universal “fix”.
Unfortunately the fix was pushed through congress by dirty tricks without the consent or participation of a single republican representative of the people.
The dictated fix will not make things better. Indeed, they have already made things worse: more complex, disorderly, difficult, and expensive. And after all of this disruption and expense to our system and our pockets the number of uninsured still remains high.
England’s healthcare system is facing Haaretz:
England, meanwhile, faces major problems of its own:
“No key services”…of course they would not cut “key services”…that would be monstrous.
But notice how the public is gently urged to lower expectations of excellence…hip replacements must go so that budgets can be met.
Sad.
Tina: “Chris you might want to watch how you toss that word “socialist” around”
Amazing.
Tina, you define universal healthcare as socialist. Switzerland has universal healthcare. By your definition, that makes Switzerland a socialist country.
It also has arguably the world’s best system of health care:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/
You just can’t keep your story straight.
“Chris you love to praise the socialist healthcare models of other nations but you do so without acknowledging the problems that plague these systems.”
I do acknowledge the problems. Even with their problems, they are still superior to the American model of healthcare in every measurable respect.
“The utopia of perfect universal coverage that you imagine doesn’t fit the reality.”
No one is claiming that universal healthcare is a “utopia” except you. No one is saying that it brings perfection. You are arguing with strawmen again.
“But notice how the public is gently urged to lower expectations of excellence…hip replacements must go so that budgets can be met.
Sad.”
Why is that sad to you? If the government won’t pick up the tab, then citizens can still pay for their own hip replacements. Isn’t that how you want it to be for all procedures?
Chris: “they are still superior to the American model of healthcare in every measurable respect.”
That is a matter of opinion not fact.
“Why is that sad to you? If the government won’t pick up the tab, then citizens can still pay for their own hip replacements.”
Single payer promises quality care for everyone and is supposed to be superior because everyone gets the same care. Then when it doesn’t deliver on the promise you attempt to justify it’s shortcoming by claiming its no different than what we had?
Trying to have it both ways is pretty typical of the left.
“Isn’t that how you want it to be for all procedures?”
What I want is healthcare that is affordable; the right policies would ensure that healthcare costs come down.
I want a nation that once again embraces the charitable model that’s possible when most people can afford both health insurance for catastrophic emergencies and their everyday healthcare needs.
One knock on Obamacare is that it could change the nonprofit status of charitable hospitals. Read about it in Forbes.
There are other things like insuring people with preconditions, for instance. I don’t think anyone was against that aspect of Obamacare.
The necessary changes that could be made are at least worth considering since we don’t have much to lose at this point.
First and foremost reform of medicare.
Competition in the insurance industry letting citizens buy across state lines.
Allow insurance companies to design products that will meet the needs of their customers.
Create opportunities for citizens to form pools or groups so they can get better rates through membership might work.
We need tort reform to hold insurance rates for hospitals and doctors down.
JOBS…we can’t pay for anything when Americans can’t offer or find good jobs.
You are often wrong about what I and my fellow conservatives want. That too is sad.
What do you think of the machine?
Tina: “Single payer promises quality care for everyone and is supposed to be superior because everyone gets the same care. Then when it doesn’t deliver on the promise you attempt to justify it’s shortcoming by claiming its no different than what we had?”
No, I clearly did not say that it was “no different.” Please try and keep up.
Chris #9: I was thanking the free market system for enabling the development of the great inventions and I was thanking Israel for this specific one.
Why are you saying it’s a communist country when Wikipedia says it’s a “Federal Republic?”
From Wikipedia.
Federal State: Thus, while the rest of Europe saw revolutionary uprisings, the Swiss drew up a constitution which provided for a federal layout, much of it inspired by the American example. This constitution provided for a central authority while leaving the cantons the right to self-government on local issues. Giving credit to those who favoured the power of the cantons (the Sonderbund Kantone), the national assembly was divided between an upper house (the Swiss Council of States, 2 representatives per canton) and a lower house (the National Council of Switzerland, representatives elected from across the country). Referenda were made mandatory for any amendment of this constitution.[25]”
Definition of a Federal Republic:
Federal republic – a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.
http://www.indexmundi.com/switzerland/government_type.html
Hummm, I’ll bet the below GOP Health Care Plan won’t run more than a hundred pages and no where near the almost 3,000 pages for Obama’s unaffordable plan with its growing daily 20,000 pages of regulations.
http://www.gop.gov/healthcare/
Peggy: “Why are you saying it’s a communist country”
Can anyone on this site actually read? Is it too much to ask for people to respond to what I actually say, instead of inventing ridiculous things I never said and responding to that?
Practice what you preach.
“Chris (and Jim) I knew I could expect this response when I posted the article.”
I doubt it, really. I don’t think you did realize that by posting this, you shatter your “socialism negates innovation” argument. Have you noticed just how often you do this?
“Can anyone on this site actually read?”
Alas, some of us eat, sleep and breath prejudice and stereotype … and so … do not see, let along read.
Socialist, communist cut from the same cloth.
Switzerland from the information that I could find available sounds more like American a hundred years ago where local state/providences held major control and the national government was limited to specific issues. There multiple educational systems are just one example.
If you have information proving it’s a socialist country I’d like to see it.
More proof innovation comes from the individual and not from big governments.
Congratulations San Jose!
Which is the smartest city in America?
In its “Healthy, Wealthy, Wise” series, TODAY reveals that the U.S.’s smartest city is San Jose, Calif. More than half of adults there have a college degree, and young entrepreneurs are moving there in droves. The government has even put a patent office in a San Jose post office, a first in the country. NBC’s Janet Shamlian reports.
http://www.today.com/video/today/54166233/#54166233
Peggy, a Communist country is very different from a socialist country. Sweden and Denmark, for example, could accurately be called socialist countries. Calling them Communist countries would be ridiculous.
Switzerland may practice the free market in many ways, but they do have, by your own definition, socialist healthcare. Since this article is about innovations in healthcare in Switzerland, it makes no sense to ignore the fact that their system of healthcare is exactly what every conservative on this site says they are against.
Chris, just to be clear every conservative on this site is against the government providing health care it can’t afford to pay for. No one is against people having needed health care if they personally can’t afford it. Socialized medicine still requires someone to pay for it out of pocket with higher taxes. Nothing is free unless everyone is willing to work for nothing.
Switzerland can afford to pay for its citizens health care because they haven’t been involved in giving foreign aide and fighting other countries’ wars. Their contribution to the world was establishing the Red Cross.
They’re living within it’s means the US is borrowing money from other countries and paying it back with more borrowed money. That’s insane and I’m sorry that you and your kids will be the one paying for it all.
The medical innovations aren’t coming out of Switzerland, at least none that I’ve heard of. They’re coming out of the US and Israel. At least they used to come from the US. With all of the mounting regulations and ObamaCare taxes on innovations expect a marked decline in future development. Don’t remember if there was a permanent or temporary fix to that tax increase reg for medical supplies in ObamaCare.
I really wish you would understand that us conservatives on this site are of an age that 10-20 years down the line it’s really not going to matter much to us, but it sure will to you.
The Republicans have come up with a plan. How about we see if it can fix the health care problems from the past and provide affordable care in the future without leaving your kids with a huge tax bill?
USSR – Union of Soviet Socialists Republic.
NAZI – National Socialist German Workers’ Party (In English)
The differences are minor since its all about central power and control, only the methods differ.
Peggy the socialist loving citizens on this blog think we are not under a socialist thumb because we do not have prison camps. In their world we are still living in freedom under a republic with power vested in the people as intended. I doubt if bread lines or neighbors disappearing in the dead of night could convince them, otherwise. They don’t have to worry though, since we beat the pants off both brands in the extreme after WWII the socialist activists have decided violence is wasteful and prefer gradual covert methods.
When, IF, the citizens commenting here ever wake up it will be too late…mores the pity.
Peggy, are you saying that the United States should cut down on military spending so that we’d have enough money to devote to universal healthcare?
I agree, but I’m surprised to hear you say that.
Tina, do you believe that China is really a “people’s Republic?” Going by what a nation is called is a really bad argument.
“Peggy the socialist loving citizens on this blog think we are not under a socialist thumb because we do not have prison camps.”
What? Prison camps aren’t a common feature of socialist countries. You’re thinking of communism again. Thanks for proving my point.
Tina, we see the similarities in socialism and communism because we’re old enough to have had an education that taught us the truth. I’m even old enough to have lived in Germany in the early 1950s and saw the destroyed buildings and traveled to Hitler’s headquarters and Eagle’s Nest in the Alps.
The millions killed by Hitler/Nazi and the millions killed by Mao and Stalin/Communist died for the common factor that someone else was in control of their lives. It wasn’t just the regulations on where they could live, what they could own, how much food they could grow or even consume it was whether they had the right to exist at all.
Anyone not seeing the creeping transformation of this country to becoming like China, Russia and Germany is either a denial of the truth or ignorant of the historical facts.
Everyone of those communist/socialist countries hated someone so they could justify the taking of their property and eventually their lives.
Who/what are we being told to hate today? The wealthy one percenters they’re the evil ones today who must be hated and despised for having so much. They didn’t earn it therefore they’re going to be forced to give it to those who didn’t work for it. The wealthy MUST pay for everyone’s health care, food, housing, phones, and if they don’t they’ll be punished. They’ll be despised, taxed, ridiculed until they either flee the country or surrender what was theirs and become one of the growing 99%.
The differences between the two are minor, but the end results are devastating. Our founders knew the evil human nature could do to one another and did what they could to prevent it. “We the people” put us in control only under “our Creator” not elected representatives, presidents or dictators.
I won’t be watching the President’s speech tonight either. He reminds me of a little man with a mustache who lead Germany down a similar path to commit murder and destroyed the country. He won’t be talking about working with Congress he’ll be telling everyone what he’s going to do alone, without the help or approval of Congress, breaking the Constitution and Congress will let him.
I’m wondering if all of the members will show up and if they do will any walk out. Now, that I’d love to see.
“Chris, just to be clear every conservative on this site is against the government providing health care it can’t afford to pay for. No one is against people having needed health care if they personally can’t afford it.”
Well if the government’s not going to pay for it, who is? You’re not making any sense. Our government, that is “we”, can afford to pay for anything we choose to pay for.
I think you, personally, just don’t choose to support this project … and the day you admit it will be a amazing, great day.
Peggy I believe you’ve nailed something to look forward to in tomorrows debate…it will be interesting from the perspective of who declines to attend and how many would rather watch a mindless program on TV.
“I’m wondering if all of the members will show up and if they do will any walk out. Now, that I’d love to see.”
So would I, actually. One of the things Zogby pointed out is that Obama, while slogging up the 40’s in the approval ratings, is still 30 points up on the Congress.
I would love to see them “seal the deal”, as it were, by doing something REALLY obnoxious.
Chris: “Prison camps aren’t a common feature of socialist countries. You’re [Peggy] thinking of communism again. Thanks for proving my point.”
And perhaps we could REALLY rub Peggy’s nose into it, by pointing out which nation it is that has the highest percentage of its population in prison.
But that wouldn’t be kind.
Libby: “Well if the government’s not going to pay for it, who is? You’re not making any sense.”
He makes perfect sense. Hospitals “ate” a lot services that were never paid for before government became the savior. In business its called a “loss”. There are also many charitable hospitals where kindhearted people donate so that poor people can be served. Most hospitals also willing to accept payments. Doctors were also willing to eat some services for their patients who were financially challenged. people worked it out. And when insurance wasn’t doled out by government people used it for its intended purpose, catastrophic illness. The rest they paid for themselves, and could afford, because prices hadn’t been driven sky high by big bureaucracies and extra paperwork in the docs office.
You being a leftist can’t imagine people being responsible as to pay their own way in life or so generous that they donate to a good cause so you dream up a plan for government to intervene and invariably the services that were once fairly cheap start rising like a rocket to help pay for the bureaucracy. After awhile doctors and hospitals lose their charitable attitude and people become incredibly entitled running to the doctor or emergency for every little thing.
“…perhaps we could REALLY rub Peggy’s nose into it, by pointing out which nation it is that has the highest percentage of its population in prison.”
“…is still 30 points up on the Congress.”
Don’t assume that those low congressional approval rates don’t belong to Harry, Nancy and the like!
Obama’s disapproval rates also cross party lines and his disapproval is at 50% with 24% strongly disapproving according to Rasmussen.
“perhaps we could REALLY rub Peggy’s nose into it, by pointing out which nation it is that has the highest percentage of its population in prison.”
Go ahead and we will point to the liberal policies, attitudes and mores that have led to high prison populations, generational poverty, and high drop out rates.
#31 Libby, who would pay for it? We’d pay for our own, if we were able bodied, with good paying jobs and lower premiums.
The government would only pay for those who can not take care of themselves. The young, old and disabled. All others would need to take care of themselves and stop expecting the government to take care of them.
I like most conservative don’t mind picking up the bill for orphans, etc. but I’m not for paying for lazy individuals who don’t want to work and would rather be a couch potato smoking dope. (It used to be bon-bons but time’s have changed.)
Hopefully, the Republican’s plan will have true reform and reasonable cost leaving us with lower taxes to pay for those who really need our help.
#29 Chris: “Peggy, are you saying that the United States should cut down on military spending so that we’d have enough money to devote to universal healthcare?”
No, I’m saying the difference between Switzerland and us is they decided to not get involved in saving the world and spending a large majority of their funds on other countries. Instead they’re using it for other things like the health care you say they provide. (I’ve not looked it up so I’ll take your word that they are.)
What they are doing is living within their means and we aren’t. $17 trillion in debt and borrowing money from other countries to make the payments on our debt is insane. Borrowing more money to give to other countries for foreign aide is beyond insane. That’s what I’m saying.
If they can afford it great, if not don’t come to us asking us to pay for it. If we had the money to pay for it without borrowing it I’d be for it too. I’m against spending money we don’t have forcing our grandkids to pay.
As for military bases over seas, I stated here before I’m not in favor of them at least not to the degree we have them. WWII ended 70 years ago and we’re all over Europe, etc. That’s not military defense it’s foreign aide. I’m with Ron and Rand Paul on this. Bring our troops home and station them on our borders. Just think of the economic boost we’d have if they were spending their military pay in the US instead of other countries. (I have a relative who was stationed outside of Belgium for just under 20 years. They owned a home and his wife also worked as a civilian on the base.)