My foolish fascination with the unintelligent Left amazes me, sometimes. About the time I finally determine to ignore them, remembering that my biggest error is harboring thoughts that they actually "think," a liberal lefty comes up with a real nice piece of ignorance that I just have to talk about.
Since conservatives oppose government involvement in the health care system, and specifically, a hijacking of the medical insurance industry, the liberal left assumes that conservatives love the insurance companies, thinks the current system is wonderful beyond reproach, and believes that there is absolutely nothing wrong with American health care. Daring to speak out against government involvement in a health care system that is broken "because" of government intrusion, opens conservatives up to be called racists, hatemongers, and extremists. To argue against Obama's government takeover of health insurance opens one up to accusations of desiring that people be refused health care by greedy insurance companies, contributing to the refusal by insurance to cover pre-existing conditions, and defending an American health care system that is "horrible" (according to the Left) in many ways, including infant mortality rates.
Some of these crazies even tout Cuba's medical system as being superior, and a model we should follow.
One of the recent comments left by far leftist traitor to the American Form of Government, leaving his name as Thomas, on Political Pistachio reads as follows:
Once again.. nice straw man. Love the way you argue Doug. Did you compare those statistics to the US? How about we compare a relevant one. Infant mortality rates UK - 22 in the world US - 33 in the world Every last one of those "ruined" European nations have a better mortality rate than we do. Canada does as well. Feel free to question the source of the statistics... but notice the domain first. cia.gov/library/publications/...
Steve Chapman of Real Clear Politics explained quite well a week ago in a piece titled "Health Care and Infant Mortality: The Real Story" how arguments like Tom's are so simple minded.
As Chapman explains, trying to say that America's health care system is lousy, and that the infant mortality rate being higher here than in other nations is evidence of that, is like saying that a boxer suffers more concussions because of his doctor.
Facts are that the American medical system is the worldwide leader in technology, new drugs, and resources. Ours is the best in the world. That is why people come to America for critical treatments.
So if American Health Care is so fantastic, how could it be that the infant mortality ranking of the United States, when compared to the rest of the world, is so bad?
One of the factors is that as citizens in the richest nation on Earth, Americans partake in habits that are not in our best interest, sometimes. We are obese. We are a society with a high percentage of substance abusers and smokers. We have more teenage pregnancies (a real testament to sex education in the schools, don't you think?), and nearly 40 percent of American babies are born to unwed mothers. American mothers also do not spend a lot of time in pre-natal care, either.
Our lifestyles, in other words, are a large contribution to the low birth weights in babies, preterm births, and higher instances of infant death syndrome.
In other words, our poor infant mortality rate is not due to poverty, or by poor medical care as the Left would have you believe, but by our habits, behaviors, and lifestyles.
I can hear the Left now: "Then government needs to make sure people change their behaviors."
No, that would be nothing short of a nanny-state dictatorship.
We, as individuals, need to make an independent decision to improve our lifestyles, and teach our children to practice safer lifestyles (which includes eating reasonably, drinking in moderation, avoiding unhealthy behaviors like smoking and promiscuity, and treating our bodies like a temple . . . oh, wait a second, that sounds like what those crazy right wing Christians have been teaching since the dawn of time!
Ahh, but this understanding of infant mortality rates gets better. It turns out that although the infant mortality rate may be better in Canada according to the current numbers, underweight babies fare better here in the United States, than in Canada. That, coupled with the better technology and superior overall care in America, explains why high-risk pregnant Canadian women are being sent to the U.S. to ensure safe deliveries and newborn survival.
According to the article by Chapman, in a 2007 study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, economists June O'Neill and Dave O'Neill also points out that "among the smallest infants, survival rates are better on this side of the border" suggesting "if we lived under the Canadian health care system, we would not have a lower rate of infant mortality. We would have a higher one."
Also, we must consider something else. The argument is that for those poor folks that don't have health insurance, if they get sick, they are screwed, and will be left unseen by any medical personnel. These poor uninsured people will be, according to the Left, allowed to go without the "right" of health care, should they need to go to a doctor without insurance, because without insurance they will be refused. This is the argument they use to push government controlled health care often. Even Hillary Clinton tried to use such an argument, arguing that the hospital wouldn't see a woman if she couldn't pay a hundred dollars. The story, by the way, turned out to be a great big lie.
Of course, the argument that folks without private health insurance will be rejected medical treatment is false from its very roots. The thing is, a public option already exists. The poorest in America, and those poor souls that get caught with a medical emergency between insurances, do have a public option to turn to. A great example of an individual facing such a dilemma is my son. He had left one employer, and was on probation on his next job, and wouldn't be eligible for his benefits for six months. Low and behold, a couple weeks into his new job he went in for a visit to his private doctor, paying cash for the routine visit, to complain about a pain he was having. The pain turned out to be testicular cancer, and it needed to be treated immediately.
He used a public option made available at a county hospital an hour drive away. He temporarily used a governmental program, and was grateful it existed. The care was not the best, the hospital was crowded, and he had to wait nearly two hours in the emergency room when he arrived, but they eventually removed the tumor, and made sure all of the cancer had been removed with a series of post-operation visits.
I had a conversation with my son recently, and he would hate for the entire system to be like the public option he used, but he believes that the existence of limited governmental care as it is now is helpful for those caught in an unenviable position as he was.
But why should we change the entire American health care industry to be like the governmental program my son used temporarily in an emergency? Most Americans like their current private insurance, and the private system is awesome for most Americans. A few Americans are caught without insurance, and may be forced to take advantage of governmental programs like the one my son used. For that minority of people, does it make sense to change the whole system? For a minority of those who actually do have a public option available should they seek it out, does it make sense to destroy the American health care system as it exists now?
I am not saying that our current medical system is flawless. There are many problems with the current health care system that need to be addressed. Each problem needs to be approached individually, however. You don't pull the entire engine out of your car for replacement because an injector is misfiring, and the alternator is undercharging - so why would you revamp the entire American system of health care because a minority of people are uninsured, or have experienced less than fortunate situations, or that costs are high because of a number of factors that can be adjusted with Tort Reform, and backing government intrusion out of the industry?
If we allow the Democrats to begin the process with H.R. 3200 towards a single payer system, our system will become like those European medical care models, where, for example, in Britain bed shortages have forced 4,000 mothers to give birth in elevators, offices and hospital toilets.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Health Care and Infant Mortality: The Real Story - Real Clear Politics
Infant Mortality Rate Prompts Canada To Send High-Risk Pregnant Women Across The Border - All Headline News
Confidence in U.S. Health Care System Has Grown in Recent Months - Rasmussen
Poll Finds Large Majority Of Americans Happy with Their Health Insurance - Newsweek
The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets - Mail Online
No comments:
Post a Comment