The political ads tell me to fear big government health care but the sound bites are so brief and none are specific. I didn't know what to fear so I did a little research on big government health programs and here is what I found.
As I expected, the big government programs covered virtually all their citizens while the U.S. system leaves about 15% with no coverage and many others with minimal or inadequate coverage. Unlike our decentralized private enterprise system, the centralized big government health care systems have plenty of flu vaccines for everyone.
With fewer people covered, I thought our system might cost less but I was surprised to find that was not true. Our system is the most expensive on the planet with expenses increasing faster than the big government systems. Since big government systems are financed by taxes, citizens in those countries pay higher tax rates but they do not have to pay health insurance premiums and they have minimal co-pay or out of pocket expenses.
Also surprising was that big government health care leads to lower mortality rates and longer life expectancies. U.S. infant mortality is among the highest for industrial nations, nearly twice the infant death rate of nations with big government health care systems. And their people live several years longer than we do in the U.S.
Contrary to what I'd been led to believe, both the citizens and health professionals in big government systems prefer their system to ours. Sure there are stories of someone having to wait for cosmetic surgery or a doctor disgruntled at not making the big bucks U.S. doctors make, but neither patients nor health providers are demanding a change to the system. In fact, international satisfaction surveys find that both patients and health providers in big government programs are more satisfied with their system than U.S. patients and health care providers are with our system.
I hope this summary of the differences helps. Now when you see those ads telling you to fear big government health care you will understand why and vote accordingly.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Why Iran needs nuclear weapons
Should I believe Bush or Iran? Last time I believed Bush but Saddam was telling the truth. If Iran isn’t trying to build nuclear weapons, it should be.
Iraq was no treat to the U.S. Iraq had no Navy, no Air Force, and their Army was so weakened by UN sanctions the Louisville Police could have handled them. North Korea is a formidable military threat with weapons of mass destruction.
Weak and defenseless Iraq experiences daily bombings losing 100,000 citizens, half women and children. Trying to blackmail them, Iraqi prisoners were sexually humiliated. Others were murdered by U.S. soldiers.
Stronger and more threatening North Korea was not attacked. We are offering them financial and economic support to cooperate. Iranians are not fools. North Korea is getting a much better deal than Iraq.
Our very different treatment of Iraq and North Korea was predicted 50 years ago. To keep the peace after WWII, U.S. and USSR diplomats formulated the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy. MAD called for both sides to have offensive nuclear weapons with virtually no defense. The logic was that one nation would not attack the other if it realized the other could retaliate. The policy worked. Neither the U.S. nor USSR attacked the other and we are now allies.
While I really don’t want Iran to become a nuclear nation, it is their only logical option. To protect its citizens from the violence of the Bush neocons, Iran must emulate North Korea and develop a nuclear deterrence.
Iraq was no treat to the U.S. Iraq had no Navy, no Air Force, and their Army was so weakened by UN sanctions the Louisville Police could have handled them. North Korea is a formidable military threat with weapons of mass destruction.
Weak and defenseless Iraq experiences daily bombings losing 100,000 citizens, half women and children. Trying to blackmail them, Iraqi prisoners were sexually humiliated. Others were murdered by U.S. soldiers.
Stronger and more threatening North Korea was not attacked. We are offering them financial and economic support to cooperate. Iranians are not fools. North Korea is getting a much better deal than Iraq.
Our very different treatment of Iraq and North Korea was predicted 50 years ago. To keep the peace after WWII, U.S. and USSR diplomats formulated the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy. MAD called for both sides to have offensive nuclear weapons with virtually no defense. The logic was that one nation would not attack the other if it realized the other could retaliate. The policy worked. Neither the U.S. nor USSR attacked the other and we are now allies.
While I really don’t want Iran to become a nuclear nation, it is their only logical option. To protect its citizens from the violence of the Bush neocons, Iran must emulate North Korea and develop a nuclear deterrence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
