Consider this: Erase the innovation component of US healthcare from the world economy and tell us what the finest in worldwide healthcare 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 even 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.

Voters must force Hillary to admit it...she wants to socialize medicine. Socialization has failed in every situation it has been attempted. It will destroy the finest healthcare delivery system in the world.

All the arguments that reach for foreign validation ignore the elephant in the room: the superior technology and research delivered by the US private market system.

Also remember seeing an article about people pulling their teeth by themselves due to a shortage of dentists in Britain. That 's the sure way to ensure equality: uniform misery except for those running the show.

Hughs -

The trick with socialism is that it won't destroy the system IMMEDIATELY - it'll take a decade or two for the problems to really become apparent. By that time, Hillary will be long out of office, and the crop of Democrats at THAT time will be able to blame the crop of Republicans for their attempts to alert the electorate to the problem AND block any attempts to fix the problem.

It's a win-win all around...

Why can't the US do better than Britain or Canada? France and Norway rate high in healthcare studies. We have more money and innovation than either of those two.

Are you saying that America can't do a better job than the UK?

EMTALA...Google and...read!

Won't happen here in the US; that is a minimum 50K fine!...plus attorney's fees.

Is Kim Priestap's evidence on the "Joys of Socialized Medicine" based upon an examination of thousands of cases?

No.

Well, then is is based on thoughtful consideration of hundreds of cases?

Still no.

Just how many cases is it based on?

Uh, one, a reported case of a couple of hospitals being crowded, and turning away one pregnant mom.

Kim, you are advised to change the title of your post to "A single joy of socialized medicine."

While we know, conservatives, that logic is definitely not your forte, please understand that liberals do read your posts, and that they, of course, have a higher standard.

It's based on many examples Herman. You'd know that if you were informed.

If Hillary gets her way with her big government solution to health care, then American fathers could experience this as well.

Please explain how government-paid private healthcare is the equivalent of government-run public healthcare.

Thank God I live in America where access to health care is plentiful.

Yes. Plentiful for those who afford to pay the insurance industries stock dividends, CEO's salaries and profit margins.

Yes. We're all very glad that the insurance industry is so very able to make tons of money from denying so many the basics of health care so they can take long vacations, buy big mansions and fancy cars. We're happy that their self indulgences take the money out of a system that might possibly afford others health care while disallowing them their luxuries.

Good work. Keep it up.

Baghdad barney:

Why can't the US do better than Britain or Canada? France and Norway rate high in healthcare studies. We have more money and innovation than either of those two.

Population by country:

U.K 60,587,000
Canada 33,048,972
France 65,144,000
Norway 4,681,100

USA over 300,000,000

Now do the math and scale up the demonstrated problems in those countries to match the USA population.

PLUS D.C's well documented and continuing ability to muck up any and everything that's even closely related to cash management.

It's a loser out of the box.

herman:

Uh, one, a reported case of a couple of hospitals being crowded, and turning away one pregnant mom.

What are you basing that on? How do you know it was only one?

The hospital admin staff did say they "experience[ed] peaks in demand and during the last 12 months" and had "to close recently for a short time to new maternity admissions."

Do you have inside knowledge that it was only a single family or have you once again used your anus as a necklace, sighed something you thought was germane and tossed it up to see if it would stick?

IT didn't, you have zero way to know it was a single family.

CB, Brian, and barney,
You will not get a lecture on the relative benefits of capitalism versus socialism here (been there, done that): the reasons are self evident to those who know how to choose and those who can see the pileup in other countries that chose the latter.

If socialized medicine finds its way to the US, don't blame the rich when you find out they are the only ones getting quality healthcare. Just look in the mirror.

Kim,

No worries!

With your known, pre-existing pelvic conditions, you would likely be scheduled to deliver by c-section. You'd be fine.

Unfortunately, you would be occupying one of those needed beds should an emergency labor case come strolling in.

But this is why people who plan ahead in life get better results than those who just float along hoping.

And herman,

Pray tell, how is Kim's one-example case any different as an example of the "joys" of socialized medicine than the one-example case of say, the Frost family, as highlighted by the Democrats?

I see no difference in either side picking one extreme example and applying it as a blanket over the whole issue.

If you are saying Kim's example is fallacious, are you not also indicting the Democrats and the Frosts with the same pointed finger?

Perhaps there's hope for you.

The joys of UK culture where a 24 yo female, not married, is having the child of a much older man (who has a 17 yo daughter living with them).

Somehow that seems more interesting than the closed hospital story to me.

Barney: We are doing better than France, the UK, & etc. already, so there is no need to change to an inferior system.

Socialized medicine controls costs by rationing care. Socialists don't care how many people die needlessly, as long as the poor have the same chance as the rich.

civil behavior, can you go through a SINGLE COMMENT without lying?

Emergency health care is available to ANYONE at ANY TIME in this country, no questions asked -- and labor certainly qualifies as an "emergency." That is the LAW, and hospitals have been fined HEAVILY for refusing patients.

Your issue is NOT with a lack of health care, but a lack of FREE (or "affordable") health care.

Why can't you just be honest for once, and argue for what you want, and not hide behind the "no health care" fraud?

J.

While we know, conservatives, that logic is definitely not your forte, please understand that liberals do read your posts, and that they, of course, have a higher standard.

Thanks, Herman.

I have an unexpectedly bad 24 hours ..... your joke was well appreciated. :-)

It is amazing how how the little lock step trolls come goose stepping out enmasse with their lame defewnses of socialized health care. Not on one of the commented on the main story of the woman having to give birth at home...but of course they can't.

There was also a report this week that a significant number of Brits can't get dental care anymore, and have resorted to pulling their own teeth.

I shit you not. Unbelievable.

"There was also a report this week that a significant number of Brits can't get dental care anymore, and have resorted to pulling their own teeth." ....

and this is exactly what cretins like Civilbutthead, BarneyMoron, etc...want for the U.S. Liberalism is definitely a disease.

Kim,

No worries!

With your known, pre-existing pelvic conditions, you would likely be scheduled to deliver by c-section. You'd be fine.

You're right: when you and your doctor know you are going to need a c-section, you schedule it. However, that does not mean that the baby will comply with that schedule, which is the situation I was referring to. A woman who's scheduled to have a c-section could go into labor before the c-section date.

CB, Brian, and barney,
You will not get a lecture on the relative benefits of capitalism versus socialism

I didn't ask about socialism. But you did a nice job of evading the actual issue by dismissing it as socialism, though.

Duh.......HughS.......the rich are the only ones getting health care in the US system today. Single payer would simply level the field so that those who cannot afford to pay for the exorbitant insurance industry's CEO perks and salaries, stock dividends and European vacations won't have to do without basic medical preventative care and end up in worse shape because of the lack of it. It's called treating the cause not the symptoms. Supplemental for those who desire it could still be available.

And Jay tea, emergency health care is available but not "free" which means that again many people wait until they are really sick to get help instead of preventative care. If our country was smart we'd be making preventative care available to all so as to reduce the backend critical load that we are now carrying.

Nothing is "free" including health care but I'll be da*ned if you can make a case for why we shouldn't have a system that addresses health care for all particularly preventive care while ignoring the expense of the insurance industry's rape of the system.

You are simply another apologist for the so called "free" market which is robbing you blind wile they cash in their chips. Your kind of rationale is beyond help in explaining the phenomena of "beat me, beat me, it feels so good"

As your "decider" says it's "hard work", keep it up. Mission Accomplished. He's got you convinced.

Knee-slapper of the week: Kim Priestap writes at Wizbang:

Thank God I live in America where access to health care is plentiful.

The thread is almost over so I will just crib the rest:

Let's talk about the number of hospital beds per capita, which is a nice indicator of who's got "plentiful" access to health care. In fact, I found another chart.

Who's Number One? Switzerland, with 18.3 hospital beds per 1,000 people.

France is #9, with 8.4 beds per 1,000 people .

The UK is way down the charts at #23 (4.1 per 1,000 people), followed at #25 by Canada (3.9 per 1,000 people).

And I'm proud to say the U.S. is, um -- wait a minute, where is the U.S? -- oh, there we are. Number Twenty-Seven. The U.S. has 3.6 hospital beds per 1,000 people.

You'll be glad to know we beat Turkey and Mexico