Comments on: Adam McKay, Care to Debate Health Care Reform?

By: Growltiger

Growltiger — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:49:00 +0000

'New Jersey that a single young male cannot buy a health insurance policy that does not include coverage for in-vitro fertilization."

Excellent point, but we have to start somewhere if real reform is to be enacted.

You bring up a great point about in vitro fertilization. Wonder how in vitro is "treated" in Nationalized Health Service countries? I don't have the data, but I'll bet a dime to a donut, it isn't routine the way it is here.

By: Vainamoinen

Vainamoinen — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:44:31 +0000

Careful, Michael, you're dueling with an unarmed opponent. I suspect Mr. McKay will need some sort of liberal health care when you're done with him.

By: EdSki

EdSki — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:17:44 +0000

People who are free are not economically equal. And people who are economically equal are not free.

By: EdSki

EdSki — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:16:17 +0000

This entire fiasco really, at it's base, has nothing to do with insurance or health care. It's all about the government grabbing power from We The People.

Health care is must the vehicle.

By: CaliforniaDave

CaliforniaDave — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:38:09 +0000

Exactly. Unfortunately it usually doesn't work in debates.

By: MrNiceguy

MrNiceguy — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:17:13 +0000

I've actually got to disagree with you on your initial point. Regarding well checks, Americans are more likely to have had a recent dental cleaning than Europeans under Socialized care. American women are more likely to have had a recent pap smear or mammogram. American men are more likely to have had a recent prostate screening. Eye exams, cholesterol tests, colonoscopies, nearly any form of preventative care – Americans are more likely to have had it done recently. That's partly why American cancer survival rates are so much better – the cancer is caught earlier. (The other reason is that, once cancer is found, Europeans have to wait longer for treatment, and have fewer treatment options available.)

By: EdGi

EdGi — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:13:12 +0000

2 points – 1. The government, any government, cannot both regulate and also run health care or anything else; it is a conflict of interest. Corruption, rationing and dictatorial autocracy are inevitable when the ruling party, not the people, controls both the system and the appeal/regulatory power.
2. Universal health care does not require taxpayer funded abortions or industry takeovers; yet these are the only objectives of the proposal wordings and proposed regional boards. It is pure hypocracy to say you want universal care but refuse to positivly eliminate either tax funded abortions or rationing boards.

By: macummings

macummings — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:38:40 +0000

Don't hold your breath, brother.

By: Darkwolf

Darkwolf — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:37:27 +0000

they're liberals.. you can leave out the lather and rinse.

By: Des_

Des_ — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:10:23 +0000

If you ever do get the chance to debate him (which should be right after the next time Michael Moore passes up dessert), you might want to let him in on a great statistic I saw here (or it was linked from here). It seems that of the largest health insurance groups, the one who turns down the most procedures (by percentage) is actually Medicare, so you might want to ask him why he supports a policy that "kills more people" than any other insurance carrier.