Children Deserve Veterinary Care Too

This year, Americans will spend about $9.8 billion on health care for their pets, up from $7.2 billion five years ago. According to the New York Times, New York’s leading pet hospitals offer CT scans, MRI’s, dialysis units, and even a rehab clinic featuring an underwater treadmill, perhaps for the amphibians in one’s household. A professor who consults to pet health facilities on communication issues justified these huge investments in pet health to me by pointing out that pets are, after all, “part of the family.”

Well, there’s another category that might reasonably be considered “part of the family.” True, they are not the ideal companions for the busy young professional: It can take two to three years to housebreak them; their standards of personal hygiene are lamentably low, at least compared to cats; and large numbers of them cannot learn to “sit” without the aid of Ritalin.

I’m talking about children, of course, and while I can understand why many people would not one of these hairless and often incontinent bipeds in their homes, it is important to point out that they can provide considerable gratification. There’s a three-year-old in my life, for example, who gives me many hours a week of playful distraction from the pressures of work. No matter how stressed I am, she can brighten my mood with her quavering renditions of the ABC song or “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.”

She has health insurance, as it turns out, and generally high quality care. But you can never be too sure. So I went to the website of VPI Pet Insurance, one of the nation’s largest animal companion health insurers, to see what kind of a policy I could get for her. In the application form, I listed her as a three-year-old mixed breed dog – a description made somewhat plausible by the fact that her first words, spoken at the remarkable age of 10 months, were “ruf ruf” and “doggie outside.” When I completed the form and clicked to get a quote I was amazed to see that I get her a “premium” policy for a mere $33 a month.

But, you may be wondering, could a veterinarian handle common children’s ills? On the hopeful side, let me cite the case, reported in June by Bob Herbert of the New York Times, of Diamonte Driver, a 12-year old boy who died recently from an abscessed tooth because he had no insurance and his mother could not afford $80 to have the tooth pulled. Could a vet have handled this problem? Yes, absolutely.

Or there’s the case of 14-year old Devante Johnson, also reported by Herbert, who died when his health insurance ran out in the middle of treatment for kidney cancer. I don’t know exactly what kind of treatment he was getting, but I suspect that the $1.25 million linear accelerator for radiation therapy available at one of New York’s leading pet hospitals might have helped. The Times article also mentions a mixed breed named Bullwinkle who consumed $7000 worth of chemotherapy before passing on to his reward. Surely Devante could have benefited from the same kind of high quality pet care, delivered at a local upscale animal hospital.

It may seem callous to focus on children when so many pets go uninsured and without access to CT-scans or underwater treadmills. But in many ways, children stack up well compared to common pets. They can shed real tears, like Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs. They can talk as well as many of the larger birds, or at least mimic human speech. And if you invest enough time in their care and feeding, they will jump all over you when you arrive at the door, yipping and covering your face with drool.

The Senate Finance Committee has approved a bill that would expand state health insurance cover for children (S-CHIP) to include 3.2 million kids who are not now covered (but leaving about 6 million still uncovered.) Bush has promised to veto this bill, on the grounds that government should not be involved in health coverage. If does veto the bill, the fallback demand should be: Open up pet health insurance to all American children now! Though even as I say this, I worry that the president will counter by proposing to extend euthanasia services to children who happen to fall ill.

Comments

[akinoluna]

Wow...yeah, pets are nice but $7000 worth of chemo for a dog? While kids are dying from tooth problems?

[buena]

Barbara, I think you're on to something here. I often wish I could go to the vet instead of the doctor; my dogs get much better medical care than I do, and it's affordable. Forget healthcare reform -- just give people access to veterinary care.

[Lulu Maude]

Great post, and in the week after Dubya vetoes children's health insurance, lest it threaten privatized health care. Sheesh.. Best go for the vet's health insurance, I guess. Does this include kennel care when Mum and Dad go to Vegas?

[Hattie]

Make sure they have all their shots and have been wormed and flea protected.
Which reminds me: I have to board my animals so I can go away to see my grandkids.

[roger]

it appears that barbara is insisting that it is a travesty that some folks choose to purchase pet insurance and send ill pets to apparently specialized animal hospitals while at the same time there are children without health insurance. is there a direct relationship between these circumstances in any degree, shape or form. the implication that president bush would consider extending euthanasia services to children is particularly galling. she would now be the 15,006th person from the left to offer the patently flaccid comparision of bush's policy and politics to hitler's atrocities. if i have a bushel of apples must this circumstance require that each child also have an apple. is it in actual fact any consideration of mine if someone pays $7000 for chemotherapy for a canine. is there any relationship between access to pet care and access to health insurance. it is from just such insipid, disconnected comparisons that i see how illogical many of the arguements are which have origin from the liberal/socialist camps.

[Justin K.]

Roger,

Barbara is not saying that it's a travesty to get your pets health care. I think the point of this blog is to say human-beings (especially children) should be able to get low cost health insurance as well.

[Steve St-Laurent]

Roger [above], who can't find the Shift key, presents a character straight out of Dickens. Read it again and picture it coming from the mouth of Alistair Sim's Scrooge. See what I mean? I'm on my fourth dog in 35+ years. Their cumulative medical costs are as close as this Canuck wants to get to the American medical care and insurance business model.

[Tim Worstall]

Pet insurance does not have Govt involvement, It is a purely free market. As Barbara notes, it works, very well in fact.
Thus her solution to an insurance system, half of which is indeed provided by the Govt (and the other half highly regulated by it) which does not work is that the Govt should be more involved in it.

Err, hello?

[roger]

steve, can you tell us about folks who choose to circumvent universal health care and instead opt to utilize private health insurance when consulting a doctor in canada. it seems that these folks would not need to go on a waiting list for common aliments. i would be disturbed if folks who self pay would also be required to go on the waiting lists for everday services. this is not an attempt to be provocative. i am seeking your opinion and some information.

[Stargeezer]

Roger: If you hold on to your bushel of apples while watching someone less fortunate starve you could rightly be classed a greedy, selfish bastard.

[Steve St-Laurent]

Roger: There is no self-pay in the Canadian public health system. We do have some folks with lots of money who go elsewhere to avoid the queues. The system isn't perfect. We do have rationing by way of wait lists. The common argument made for people who purchase their health care abroad is that it frees up demand on the public system. For that matter, public providers here will sometimes purchase some surgical services in the U.S. to shorten the waiting times. Some years ago, when I was awaiting a kidney transplant and receiving dialysis three times a week, I took some small satisfaction in the fact that the person at the next dialysis station might be a millionaire or a welfare recipient. What we all had in common was need and a system that treated us on the basis of that, not the size of our wallets. But to reach this point requires seeing health care as a basic human need, not a consumer luxury.

[roger]

star, surely you have a better response than sophmore name calling. if folks want their apple they may go to the medicaid office, medicare office or the hospital emergency room which is prohibited by law to refuse medical services. if the charges are more than they can afford they can apply for charity care at the hospital. i work in a food stamps and medicaid office. there are ways to get emergency care. this is emergency care which i have already paid for through higher insurance premiums so that others may have access to this care. the question is not black and white. as for selfish i pay a lot in the form of taxes, fees, and surcharges for services i may or may not use. government is an impersonal, inefficient means of service delivery. i see how inefficient medicaid functions and this is why i would hesitate to commit the care of all americans to the government in the form of universal health care.

[Anarcissie]

roger: '... government is an impersonal, inefficient means of service delivery. ...'

True, but in some areas there does not seem to be any other practical means. Capitalism, which has proved so effective at providing some goods and services, has not done well with medical care at all, and is doing particularly badly in the U.S. at present.

One alternative would be consumer cooperatives -- in the case of medical care, client-owned HMOs. But most people aren't interested. Perhaps the heroic - authoritarian mystique of medicine, promoted in so many TV shows and movies, scares people off.

That seems to leave the government, for all practical purposes, unless you have another suggestion.

[roger]

government intervention for alleviating the medical need of those who find themselves in a tight spot does not need to lead to universal coverage. i would support a much strengthen saftey net for those who cannot negotiate private insurance however this safety net should fall well short of universal coverage. the root cause for all of these cost issues and coverage issues is that health care is entirely too expensive. much of this goes away if health care were much less costly. i happen to agree that health care should be treated as a basic need and not a commodity as steve has remarked.

[Larry In Lethbridge]

Left , right, center. Is is possible to adopt universal healthcare in the US, while maintaining the capitalist nature of most all the other industries ?

It works in all the other countries discussed here. I think their economies are "healthier" as a result.

Peoplethat reject Universal health care coverage based on principle that it might turn you into Socialists need to read up on it more.Do the research and find it ain't that bad.

Your nation is in serious trouble. You need to stop the bleeding folks. An having a health care system to make sure everyone is healthy, including the "rich" is necessary.

I know more wealthy Americans than poor ones. They don't like having to pay thousands every month when they see me , their peer, unencumbered without these wacky monthly payments.

Oh, yes I forgot. I am in 50 % tax bracket too.

[Lulu Maude]

I spent many years working in public schools, not even particularly poor ones, in which about half the children didn't see any health care professional mightier than our school nurse.

[Laura]

Roger - wikipedia sarcasm. I wouldn't eat an apple from your bushel if I was dying from starvation. I hate the taste of Republican. Republicans, actually, are the first things to come to mind when I hear the phrase "patently flaccid."

[roger]

this is not a partisan issue.

[Anarcissie]

roger -- Actually there are several different issues involved with the provision of and payment for medical care. Only is one is that a substantial number of people can't pay for it. Another is that the many who can pay for it pay a lot and get poor service from the existing system. I think there is also a serious issue about the quality of the care itself, which has been discussed previously on this blog. As you note much of this seems to come back to price, a price which is mysteriously unaffected by competition.

[Larry In Lethbridge]

Hey Rog,

I am surprised you feel this way especially since you work in a medicaid /food stamps office. Real compassionate fella Uh ?

Ever speak to anyone who "weathered" the Depression" and was forced to use soup kitchens and take menial work just to subsist ? Some good books on the subject.I suggest reading a few of them and that might make your apple seem a little less bitter.

[roger]

apparently i am not following you larry. this is a nonpartisan, technical proposition: can the government provide universal coverage at a price which will not exaust the source of the revenue (middle class taxpayers) and at the same time provide medical services which are at once appropriate to the needs of the masses (the ruling class will seek private doctors) and also acceptable to the service providers (physicians). my opinion is that the government is too inflexible to address the medical needs of its citizens and will not pay the service providers the charges that highly educated health care professionals will expect to be paid. my experience working with medicaid is the model for government issued and regulated health service delivery which i utilize in order to come to any conclusion regarding whether the federal government could be the service delivery provider. my experience with medicaid seems to suggest that the answer to that question is no. i have no affinity to private health insurance companies. on the other hand the federal government is ill equipped to provide these services. the cost of health care will not decrease. the cost will simply be shunted off to the middle class and there will be a significant tax increase to pay for it. there is no solution to the problem until the cost of health care as a whole is significantly decreased.

as for literature the finest depiction of class struggle and desperate circumstance is an excellent book: let us now praise famous men by james agee. mr agee follows the daily work and struggle of three sharecropper familes in alabama during the summer of 1936. these are cotton tenants. these families live on the landlords property and are dependent on the landlords for all of their needs. it is heartrending description of truly injured and damaged folks.

when one works at the food stamp office one sees how government works. as i have said previously i have interviewed hundreds of families and have witness how government has failed them time and again.

[Laura]

"she would now be the 15,006th person from the left to offer..." - you throw out terms like "left" and "liberal" and you MAKE it a partisan issue. In this context those are political buzzwords, not directional terms or how thick a spread of mayo you want on your bologna sandwich.

[AlexG]

Well i think that providing everybody with a vision and dental plan is a good way to start.

[Chris S.]

To me health care is indeed a basic human right but there those that compare it to the purchase of soup or nuts. So they argue should everyone get free soup and nuts? It's pure sophistry in place of logic not to mention an elegant way to defend selfishness.

[roger]

how we fix the cost of simple health care coverage and practice should not be a partisan issue.

when folks imply that bush would be inclined to extend euthanasia to children is a partisan issue.

i was simply referring to the nonsense in the original commentary.

[mothersvox]

Barbara, Yours is a more modest proposal than that Swiftian proposal for the children of the Irish, but no less spot on. Quite brilliant in fact. With the elderly eating dog food in order to afford their medications, we've got a marvelous social safety net in the pet services industry, don't we?

[Lulu Maude]

Boy, am I ever tired of Roger. I guess one of the drawbacks of being widely read is the Rogers and the Chrises who think that they're setting you straight and at the same time giving a wide audience a dose of their superior intellect... not to mention propping up the worship of privatization.

There is so much info out on the real lives of people who lack any backup for hard times, Nickel and Dimed among them, that it's sad to imagine old Roger getting his rocks off on Ann Coulter or some other blamer of the poor instead.

Sing on, Barbara. We need you, even when you must sing the blues.

[roger]

lulu: the system is broken. the ruling class is not particularly intersted in health care for the middle and lower class. they will either go to private doctors or in the case of congress they will have separate pension and medical benefits separate from social security. we need a path now to secure medical benefits for those who are not included in either expensive private insurance or in medicaid and medicare including those 6 million who barbara reports are not covered. what would be your ideas.

keep in mind that universal health care would break the back of the middle class. the lower class does not pay sufficient tax to support the plan due to falling outside of the income brackets. it is not that the poor are either to be blamed or that the poor do not desire to help pay for the plan. they make insufficient to be taxed at any siginifcant rate. the ruling class have significant tax shelters. the ruling class does pay siginificant taxes but again insufficient to support such a plan. that leaves the middle class. careful not to kill the goose that pays the taxes. if you are sufficiently annoyed with my simple analysis then perhaps you woul;d like to set all the rest of us straight.

[Larry In Lethbribge]

Hey Rog,
First, for such a smart dude, why don't you use the shift key ? Is this part of your brand ? Annoying.

I am glad to see you exhibit a touch of compassion in your assessment of some the books you mention.

Even us dummies know the lower class don't pay as much in taxes as the middle or upper classes, that is pretty evident. I think you can argue till you are blue in the face for keeping a private system, but while you are gassing everyone with your viewpoints, not only poor people, but people of all income ranges are being affected. And some are needlessly dyeing. Some lead crappy lives.Even "rich" families are leading crappy lives as the $2000.00 monthly premiums for the HMO is putting a serious damper on the monthly finances.

You keep this type of system in place and keep thinking a jackass like Bush is right, you are gonna have an apocalypse on your hands.

Your statement that universal healthcare would break the back of the middle class is not only comical, but proves you might not be that smart afterall. And you don't get out much to other countries either.

Come back when you have something intelligent to say.

[chris]

Larry in LeftField says:

"Your statement that universal healthcare would break the back of the middle class is not only comical, but proves you might not be that smart afterall. And you don't get out much to other countries either."

Warren Buffett, the second richest man in America, lost his wife to cancer a couple of years ago.

Why mention her? Because her demise shows that no matter how much money one has to spend on healthcare, it's not enough to beat many health problems.

The US cannot afford to provide top-quality care to all 300 million legal CITIZENS under any circumstances.

Next, the US cannot afford to GIVE top-quality medical care to people who sneak into the country.

Based on the desires of many people piping up here, it's clear they see no problem for the US when it comes to becoming the maternity ward for the world.

If an illegal alien female gives birth ON US soil, her child is a CITIZEN. Mom and child will not be deported. They will receive free lifetime healthcare.

If Universal Healthcare were available to every citizen, how would we stop the human tidal wave that would arrive as a result?

There can be no discussion of Universal Healthcare until the US can keep undeserving people away. But that discussion is nothing but shouting and chaos.

We must rewrite the laws for citizenship. We must make the US more attractive to well paid people and less attractive to those who will work for less than minimum wage.

This is easy. Vastly increase the H1-B visa program is step one -- in other words, eliminate the caps. Step two is to eliminate the minimum wage. Step three is to create a guest-worker program so that anyone who wants to work in the US can.

Legislate the crimes out of existence. Then there will be funds for SOME medical care for everyone.

And don't forget the issue of medical malpractice.

Larry in LeftField thinks all is rosy in countries with Universal Healthcare. Of course he's nuts and is probably writing from that wing in the hospital where the funny people stay, but so what?

In this country medical malpractice lawsuits and the settlements that follow are a huge component of overall medical costs. To think that Americans are going to give up their right to sue for enormous sums is hoping for the discovery of unicorns.

There is a huge irony afoot in the current presidential race. John Edwards, the dunce who is seeking the Democratic nomination, is a big supporter of Universal Healthcare. What a shock!?

The guy who built a multi-million dollar fortune winning medical malpractice suits now want the US government to become the deep-pocketed defendant in every suit.

We can't afford Universal Healthcare because malpractice lawsuits would bankrupt the country before runaway expenses did the job.

New York City pays out $500 million a year in liability losses. The biggest chunk of those payments goes to settling medical malpractice lawsuits involving Medicaid patients.

If every taxpayer were suddenly on the hook for all medical malpractice judgments in the country, our national debt would skyrocket.

Thus, before any humanitarian concerns are addressed, the country has to undergo some fundamental changes. Without a way to balance the books without bankruptcy, there is zero chance for a universal healthcare program in this country.

[Larry In Left field]

Oh Chris,

Warren Buffet's wife died of cancer and maybe the best medical care which I am sure she had could not have saved her under any circumstance. Some people just can't beat cancer, my father included. He had the best available to him in Alberta, but his time was up.

I think we are talking about the general population here, not individual cases.

You toss out there :

If every taxpayer were suddenly on the hook for all medical malpractice judgments in the country, our national debt would skyrocket.

Could you give us an overview as to why Americans will sue for just about any reason, and why this leads to a negative perception of them on the worlds stage ?

Love to hear your sage take on this.

Well it is skyrocketing, with healthcare not a part of the astronomical rise. Healthcare is protected by the greedmongers that want to line their personal fortunes first . Dont try and argue thast one Christo, as we all know this is the crux of the problem.

Your national debt, if allowed to escalate will reduce the the US to 3rd world status sooner rather than later.

What do I know anyway. I need to get back to the ward as they are handing out meds and if all goes well, we get ice cream tonite.

What to you propose big boy when civil unrest and the apocalypse happens. You gonn a hightail it outta Brooklyn and head for Canada ? or you gonna hunker down in your flat and eat cat food and hope the uprising will self surpress.

Why are you being such a dork when you know massive change is neccessary ?

Oh, the ice cream lady is here,Gotta go, I hope they have Rocky Road.

After, we are going to watch some mindless reality TV tonite.

Chris, Rog, you are my heroes.

[Elaine Vigneault]

This type of analogy is dangerous. They are not really comparable.

For one, most pet "insurance" isn't. It's actually a healthcare expense plan that just distributes the pet's healthcare costs into monthly payments. And when it is real insurance, the caps for reimbursement are low. For example, in my family we pay about $600 per year for our five pets. The reimbursement is capped at $2000 per illness or injury. So if one of the pets gets cancer and we decided to really, truly fight it, the "insurance" isn't going to help much.

On the other hand, we pay over $600 per month to insure ourselves (two healthy young adults) and there is no cap at all.

They are entirely different types of insurance and cannot reasonably be compared. It's like comparing car insurance to health insurance. Really, it is.

Not that pets are cars, but under the law they are property, not rights-bearing beings and so insurance companies can take greater risks.

Moreover, your tone that Americans spend more on their pets than on their children is insulting to animal lovers. My husband and I will go to the end of the Earth for our pets, they are part of the family, but that doesn't mean we won't also go to the end of the Earth for our children, when we have/ adopt them.

You're assuming we have to make a choice between caring for animals and caring for humans and that's simply wrong, it's a false choice.

You've set up a dilemma where there is none. Americans also spend a lot of money on food, do we have to choose between eating and caring for children? Do we have to choose between caring for seniors or children? No. We are the richest country on Earth. We have more than enough resources and compassion to care for all of us.

[Anarcissie]

I think roger has made some reasonable points which many of you are ignoring. We are already in a situation where the system that provides medical care is evidently unaffected by market forces. The main thing that seems to be limiting the inflation of medical care prices at present is the fact that many millions of people simply refuse to pay them regardless of the consequences, even to the point of death, while others of course cannot pay them.

Give this system the power to tax, and we have to assume it will once again inflate its prices indefinitely. I think we need to know why the system works the way it does, and not just assume that the government will somehow take care of everything. After all, in theory we _are_ the government. If we can't answer these questions, for sure a bunch of politicos are not going to be able to.

[paperpusher666]

The rate of $33 a month quoted was for a puppy. At that age, you might well spend less than $396 a year in premiums if all that the dog needed was immunizations, worming, and spaying. As Elaine pointed out, the benefits for various diseases are capped. The premiums go up rapidly with age, although the increases are by age groups like under a year, 1-3 years, 4-6 years, etc.

Even in countries that have national health care, rationing is a real issue. In England, it takes the form of the waiting list for elective procedures. If you have private insurance, you jump to the head of the line.

[paperpusher666]

The rate of $33 a month quoted was for a puppy. At that age, you might well spend less than $396 a year in premiums if all that the dog needed was immunizations, worming, and spaying. As Elaine pointed out, the benefits for various diseases are capped. The premiums go up rapidly with age, although the increases are by age groups like under a year, 1-3 years, 4-6 years, etc.

Even in countries that have national health care, rationing is a real issue. In England, it takes the form of the waiting list for elective procedures. If you have private insurance, you jump to the head of the line.

[Barbara E]

Elaine -- My blog in no way sets up a choice between caring for pets and caring for children, nor is it in any way critical of pet owners.

[lc2]

Seems like as good a time as any to acknowledge that we are the richest country in the world BECAUSE we have not embraced a system that adequately meets the needs of its citizens, not in spite of it. We simply will not drip with such opulence and suv's if we were to really change. However, I feel we'd be better for it and maybe able to look at ourselves in the mirror w/out cringing.

[Larry in Leftfield]

I will use Chris in Fuguedom's format here.

Elaine closes her post with :
"We are the richest country on Earth. We have more than enough resources and compassion to care for all of us".

I think you may need to revist that one Elaine. Were, was, are ?? Per capita ?

You do have the resources,you do have the compassion, but unfortunately the attitudes of many will not allow for the change that is needed right now.

Oh, while I am no economist,(read it though) your present President is well on his way to stripping the USA of much of this wealth you refer to.

Gotta go, nurse is here with my shot.

[Hattie]

The time will come when Canadians will have to fight for their rights. Will they do it, or will they just let themselves be rolled over?
That's the negative side of social democracies. Citizens become complacent and don't realize, as Joni Mitchell puts it, what they've got till it's gone.
So many people up your way can follow their bliss and live modest but satisfying lives, because they know their basic needs will be met. We have no such luxury here.
So rather than pointing the finger at your troubled neighbor to the south, I suggest you get busy working to preserve your social safety net from the greedmeisters who would like to take it away from you.

[Anarcissie]

Larry paraphrasing Elaine V.: '...You do have the resources,you do have the compassion, but unfortunately the attitudes of many will not allow for the change that is needed right now. ...'

I think that is doubtful, both as to the resources and the compassion. I believe the party here is nearly over, in fact. The financial condition of the country is being hidden by what amounts to the printing of fake money. But that's a different topic.

As for compassion, the basic social contract of the United States is dog eat dog, and devil take the hindmost. That is one of the reasons we have the kind of medical payment system we do: the middle classes are in deathly fear that they will have to pay more for medical care for poor, excessively pigmented people.

[chris]

Larry in Less Land, you wrote:

"Warren Buffet's wife died of cancer and maybe the best medical care which I am sure she had could not have saved her under any circumstance."

The "best care" is a relative term. She was able to obtain the best treatment in the world. Anyone with less money MIGHT -- depending on the medical issue -- have to accept a lower level of care.

That is the issue, as you noted, but don't seem to understand.

You wrote:

"Some people just can't beat cancer, my father included. He had the best available to him in Alberta, but his time was up."

Sorry for your loss. But what does it mean when the family is told "sorry, we have done everything we can"?

The statement has different meanings in different countries, even in different hospitals in the same country.

You wrote:

"I think we are talking about the general population here, not individual cases."

Okay. So you now admit that the "general population" cannot expect to receive the best medical care that exists. The "general population must content itself with lesser service -- RATIONING of healthcare.

However, as you know, when a family member is in the hands of the medical community, suddenly those dispassionate statements about what the "general population" must ACCEPT seem to disappear from one's thoughts.

You asked:

"Could you give us an overview as to why Americans will sue for just about any reason..."

Like Mt. Everest, we sue because the huge pot of money is there. If you now want to challenge the realities of litigation in US society, that's fine with me. But the US is a litigious society because our Constitution permits us to seek compensation from liable parties when our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is impaired by ostensibly preventable forces.

YOu further asked:

"...and why this leads to a negative perception of them on the worlds stage?"

Yeah. Here's how much it matters to people in the rest of the world. Four New York City cops, while searching for a brutal rapist, shot and killed Amadou Diallo about 10 years ago. He was an illegal immigrant from the African nation of Guinea, one of poorest and most corrupt nations on the poorest and most corrupt continents on Earth.

When his parents were informed by personal-injury lawyers of their right to sue the NY Police Department for the wrongful death of a son they hadn't seen for years, the divorced mother and father found their ways to the US, filed suit and collected about $3 million, possibly more.

I know how much hate this must cause in the world. A wrongful death of an immigrant in the US results in a massive payment to the parents of an adult child they haven't seen in years. The cruelty of that payment is beyond measure, I know.

It's especially cruel when one considers the sums paid by non-US governments to families of wrongful death victims on their lands. An American who was spending time in Mexico was killed last year by the police in Oaxaca. Will Something, was his name. He was videotaping a protest when he was shot.

I figure the Mexican government will give his family ZERO dollars, which shows you how cruel the US is when it gave the Diallos $3 million.

I also have a good estimate of the amount the palestinian government gives the families of Israelis who are killed in suicide bombings committed by the insane palestinians.

You wrote:

"Well it (US national debt) is skyrocketing, with healthcare not a part of the astronomical rise."

No kidding. This point, though true, is irrelevant.

You went off the deep end with:

"Healthcare is protected by the greedmongers that want to line their personal fortunes first."

Can you identify the "greedmongers"?

Are they the doctors, nurses, technicians, therapists, hospital maintenance people, the record-keepers, the pharmaceutical companies, the bio-tech companies, or the health insurance companies, to name a few of the likely suspects?

You wrote:

"Your national debt, if allowed to escalate will reduce the the US to 3rd world status sooner rather than later."

Your ignorance is running at full-strength. But you did admit:

"What do I know anyway."

You asked:

"What to you propose big boy when civil unrest and the apocalypse happens."

You sound like the everyday black thug from Brooklyn with that statement.

Do you really think millions of Americans are going to burn down the neighborhood as a way to demand better medical care when most people -- rich, poor, middle-class -- have some healthcare coverage?

Your grasp of group behavior in the US is zero.

You asked:

"You gonn a hightail it outta Brooklyn and head for Canada?"

Why? Here's a quirky detail about a lot of people in Brooklyn, mostly minority group members. Many don't trust the medical community. They refuse to have their children innoculated against the regular array of childhood maladies. They skip the free measles shots, chicken pox vaccinations, flu shots and others. Why? Because they think the shots spread the various illnesses which will cause them to need more medical care that will cost them more money. They believe that vaccination programs are some profit-making conspiracy of the US medical system and they don't want any part of it. When you figure it out, let me know.

You wrote:

"...or you gonna hunker down in your flat and eat cat food and hope the uprising will self surpress."

I have a single-family house in a neighborhood of single-family homes. The neighborhood is often used by film crews seeking locations. We were approached the other day by a film crew looking for sites to shoot a new show called Canterbury's Law, starring Julianne Margulies from ER.

Law & Order shoots in the neighborhood, as does "Rescue Me" and some scenes from "The Sopranos" were also shot here. It's a nice area.

Second, I don't have a cat or cat food and the stores near me are open long hours. Moreover, all the stores deliver.

There will be no uprising. Were you watching "Escape from New York" when you wrote that?

On the other hand, the muslim community, which is adjacent to my neighborhood, is under heavy observation by the NY Police Department. It is within reason to believe that muslim trouble will emerge from that neighborhood and might involve the subway which stops around the corner from my house. Based on the patrolling patterns of the police, they have anticipated as much.

[Andrea]

Disease is frightening. I know this from experience. Insurance is helpful. Without it my medical expenses would read like a telephone number. Insurance is also expensive. Even with the insurance we currently get from an employer, it still costs money to keep a policy. Even a policy that will arbitrarily charge you because your hospital chooses to use one lab and not another is expensive.

The point we have missed, I think, is that there is an emotional component to medical care that is as much a fact as is the cost of drugs, machines, labor and materiel. We have insurance for our dogs and cats because we love them, and when our beloved pets are sick or hurt, we empathize with their pain, and, also for purely emotional reasons, desire that the cost of treating the problem not destroy our bank accounts and credit. We also want insurance for our children because they can become sick, and frightened by the pain. When they say, "I hurt," and want some relief, providing that relief becomes the first wish of our heart.

I wonder whether it is wrong to argue for better, affordable, reliable health care for families, even for adults, on the purely emotional grounds that "It frightens me when my child screams that way, and I need a doctor to fix that." In light of the more factual arguments people present when they ask the government for more money to build up the military industrial complex, or for space exploration, or for standardized testing mandates for public schools, yes, it does sound wrong to say, "They found a tumor in my baby's brain, and unless I win the lottery there is no way I can pay to have it out. And I'm scared for my baby." Arguing from an emotional context seems wrong because somehow emotions aren't facts the way nuclear proliferation is a fact.

In light of the new Cult of Positivity (it all ties together), emotions are even less factual because we can transform them with a little will power.

Emotions become still weaker because we don't see the suffering of people who are in pain and need care, but who can't get what they need with the money they have. No one with any power to make decisions about policy really sees in any way that makes an impact. Any who try can be rubber-stamped with a convenient label and dismissed.

It is this blindness to the reality of decisions about health care that creates irrational health care, insurance, and policy decisions. When we fail to take into account that people have strong feelings during illnesses, we fail to understand how they act and what their needs are. And failing people in a time of need is wrong. More wrong, perhaps, than introducing emotions into logical argument.

[lc2]

Well said Andrea!!!

You already covered our collective inability to confront the emotional dimension of illness and acknowledge the role it plays in health care costs.

On an individual basis, as a person choosing between policies a, b, and c offered by one's employer:

Opting for policy A because it's cheaper and one is healthy/non-smoking in the light of day while sitting at one's desk w/a calculator trying to figure out how one can still eke out car payments and mortgage (yes I realize I'm talking about the middle-class office worker here), has NOTHING to do with the reality of facing a catastrophic illness or injury. That is why so many insured, previously healthy people end up bankrupt or otherwise set back permanently by the financial demands of illness, even a temporary illness. Because we're brainwashed to believe that we have so much control/power over our health (the "cult of positivity" you mentioned and Barbara brought up in her last essay) we are unlikely to opt for adequate insurance, if it's offered and we can afford it. Most of us are lucky and the odds are on our sides. But is that any way to run health care delivery in a civilized country? Count on the odds? I saw firsthand how my jogging, semi-vegetarian, perfect-weight, non-smoking mother came down w/cancer in her early 40s and back in the 80s it only took my fully-insured folks 5-6 years to bounce back financially. Today they'd probably have lost their house etc. There is no question, we are heading in the wrong direction! I'm stunned that there are still people out there who will blame our situation on John Edwards, indigent immigrants, and apparently, Muslims. When the fully-insured citizens of a country are so woefully underserved, it's time to admit that this is a bigger prob than malpractice insurance, over-use of emergency rooms, and bad lifestyle choices, and that we'll all have to make sacrifices to get out of this mess.

And now I hand it off to chris. Enjoy!!

[chris]

Andrea writes:

"Disease is frightening....The point we have missed, I think, is that there is an emotional component to medical care that is as much a fact as is the cost of drugs, machines, labor and materiel....When we fail to take into account that people have strong feelings during illnesses, we fail to understand how they act and what their needs are."

It goes without saying that disease is frightening. That fright is not overlooked by the medical community.

There are support groups, counselors, psychiatrists and psychologists who work with patients suffering from medical problems. There are bereavement services for those left behind. Once again, though the system needs work, the emotional needs of patients are a concern of the medical community. But I suspect that people often do not utilize the mental health services available to them in these times of distress.

[chris]

lc2, you wrote:

"Because we're brainwashed to believe that we have so much control/power over our health (the "cult of positivity" you mentioned and Barbara brought up in her last essay) we are unlikely to opt for adequate insurance, if it's offered and we can afford it."

Brainwashed. That's a fascinating word. Can you define it? Can you give some evidence that "brainwashing" has occurred?

Who or what performs this "brainwashing" operation?

In sum, your claim that Americans are "brainwashed" into thinking we can skip the healthcare insurance because we feel lucky is a gambit to, once again, pretend that we are not responsible for ourselves in the least. Your claim that some external force has "brainwashed" us means we're not responsible for our behavior if we foolishly opt to buy a nice car instead of increasing our healthcare coverage.

You're stating that we're driven mad by the gods of consumerism, that we're irrational and incapable of sanely boosting our rainy day needs because we're helpless in the face of the great "brainwasher", whoever or whatever that is.

It may be a mistake to forgo the healthcare coverage to buy a new toy. But let's call it what it is: a decision.

That decision may be half-baked or foolish, but good or bad, it is a personal choice.

You are now moving into the territiry of moral hazard. Moreover, you seem to think -- by way of your "brainwashing" bugaboo -- everyone has the right to abdicate all responsibility for themselves.

[Larry in Less land]

I think I will disregard the comment from Hattie, after reading much of what she posts here, not much has been a positive cntribution, other than trying to butter up Barbara, and I am not sure why she wants to do that.

As for Captain Brooklyn, please do tell us more about the burgeoning film industry in Brooklyn. At least we can make some sense out of this, as the rest of your arguments are so so discombobulated, and I don't think anyone really gives a rat's ass about how intelligent you see yourself come across.

Last, are you referring to Lethbridge Alberta as a lesser place than say... well you tell me ?.

[Lulu Maude]

When we talk about universal health care breaking the back of the middle class, we are taking for granted the priorities of expenditures by our govt. and our current system of taxation.

Tip of the iceberg, wot?

[Monica]

But what exactly is a good lifestyle? From time to time, some study would say things such as that some red wine is actually good and that overweight or slightly or moderately obese people (which is not the same as hugely obese who can't get out of bed without help) actually recover better from some diseases or won't get sick as easily. It is also possible that for some people, such as those who used to have a less healthy lifestyle, becoming vegetarian, losing weight and exercising too much is a worse strain on their body than remaining the way they were or changing just a little, or more slowly. As a matter of fact, being strictly vegetarian may add problems like not getting some nutrients or eating vegetables with pesticide residue.

[covtb]

I'm all for universal healthcare. This is somewhat off topic but having the knowledge I feel like I have to share. Let me throw a little monkey wrench into this affordable insurance. Sure, that $33 a month sounds good. But is in some ways as misleading as many health insurance programs. If you look at the fine print of these programs VPI is very well known for excluding, excluding, excluding...They also have very low maximums for many of the illnesses. Lastly, with this insurance the consumer pays the bill and then goes to the insurance company and tries to get reimbursed. Most pets lead fairly healthly lives and go to a vet once or twice a year so their is less cost involved and a pet only lives maybe 10 -20 years depending on the animal. Vets are already discussing what might happen if practices have start dealing with insurance companies and more companies are created. There are fears that vet medicine could quickly become as broken as human medicine.

[WereBear]

Why is health care so expensive?

First, it is because we are providing profit for private health insurance companies. Most figures I've seen quote 1/3 as the profit for the insurance company.

We can certainly get rid of that.

Secondly, why doesn't health care run on economies of scale? Restricting health care runs up the price. Letting everyone have at it should lower it, then. Let the MRI's run 24/7.

Thirdly, our present system ignores people who can't afford to go to the doctor regularly. By the time they HAVE to go, the illness is much more expensive, and possibly, untreatable. There's a bunch more hidden costs, right there.

I suggest people like Roger quit whining about "socialized medicine" and realize a Healthy System is what we should be promoting, which will save more money in the long run.

But then again, perhaps he is a rabid capitalists. And, lately, they don't think of the long run, at all.

[roger]

good morning, in response to werebear i have an acquaintance who is a physician. he tells me that his malpratice insurance alone is $75,000 per year. it would be foolish to attempt to practice medicine in the present environment without protection from frivolous
and devastating lawsuits. this is not to imply that the public should not have recourse for malpractice. in addition to this expense there would be the expense of paying off student loans and paying for staff and office space. we have not yet addressed the expenses associated with hospitals which have little hope of receiving compensation from folks who have no means to pay for expensive medical procedures. the hospital is required by law to treat these folk and this is appropriate application of law.

i will say this again: i have no affinity for insurance companies who are all too busy excluding those who are a poor risk. on the other hand lets not be to quick to simply peg the insurance companies as the villians here. the questions were never quite that simple.

the question is whether universal health care can address the health care needs of 300 million people. remember that the waste and fraud of the katrina response ran a tab of 1.4 billion dollars. this is representative of the blunt instument of government in response to disaster. the health care system is a far greater complication than katrina continues to be.

i never used the phrase socialized medicine.

i dont know what a rabid capitalist is.

[paperpusher666]

I would support the opening of veterinary care to children only if the children who come to the vet's office have to arrive at the office and remain in properly sized carriers until seen by the vet and can be muzzled at the discretion of any staff member, with said muzzle to remain in place until the child departs.

Opening veterinary care to children would just accelerate the trend toward limiting a vet's practice to "cat only", "bird only" or "dog only" practices. These vets usually charge higher rates than all-species vet practices.

[paperpusher666]

I would support the opening of veterinary care to children only if the children who come to the vet's office have to arrive at the office and remain in properly sized carriers until seen by the vet and can be muzzled at the discretion of any staff member, with said muzzle to remain in place until the child departs.

Opening veterinary care to children would just accelerate the trend toward limiting a vet's practice to "cat only", "bird only" or "dog only" practices. These vets usually charge higher rates than all-species vet practices.

[Justin K.]

I just got done reading this whole blog up to this point and the only statements that up set me are two sentences posted by Chris.
"There can be no discussion of Universal Healthcare until the US can keep undeserving people away." Every one is deserving of life. Life is our god given RIGHT! As for NY's muslim community and being under heavy observation by the NY Police Department. well, I think there's a law about racial profiling.

[WereBear]

In response to Roger I have these facts (and I'm sorry I called him a rabid capitalist. It's because I get testy when people ignore facts like the ones I tracked down below, but maybe Roger doesn't know these facts. Once again, I apologize.)

According to the World Health Organization, the British health system is ranked 18th. The US system ranked 37th.

According to economist Paul Krugman, the British obtain that superior system while spending only 40 percent as much per person as we do.

Any questions?

[paperpusher666]

There is an article in today's NY Times that suggests that one way to lower medical costs is to pay doctors less. Suppose that you were awarded a scholarship to the Uniformed Health Services University of the United States for medical school. You would enter a second lieutenant (or ensign), and be promoted along at the regular pace that officers can expect (about 18 months and just under 4 years). All that time, you would earn the regular salary for a military officer and incur no student loan debt. You would owe two years of military service for every year of medical school. I am not certain how much (if any) your period of service would be modified if you stayed on active duty to do a residency.

One can argue that it is a lot cheaper to pay an officer the 0-3 and 0-4 pay grades that $100-150K per year fresh out of one's internship. It's a question of the tradeoffs that one wants to make. During military service, one is in a self-insured situation for malpractice, (and it's hard to win a malpractice suit against military doctors) and office support would be provided, plus full access to medical facilities wherever they were stationed, so they wouldn't have those expenses.

[roger]

we dont know what 37th in the world means. we dont know if the demographics match up well enough between the united kingdom and the united states to draw a worthy comparision. we dont know what criteria were used to rank the health care systems in each country. we dont know who completed the study. we dont know the agenda of the entity which completed the study. we dont know if much greater population of the united states was a function which caused the united states to score poorly.

these facts are not compelling. certainly we are not in the position to recommend that the united states move to a single payer universal health care system based on this thread of evidence.

[Larry In Left Field]

Justin,

I think you pointed out what many of us have been thinking all along, and that is Chris is a paranoid racist. He claims Brooklyn as his home ,but for all we know Buddy could be stroking away in the Mississippi Delta, working on his screenplay that nobody wants to buy. I think he see a black man and runs home and hides under the bed. Pretty tough guy on the keyboard though.

You can sense the pent up frustration when he counters with the authoritative :

"There can be no discussion of Universal Healthcare until the US can keep undeserving people away."

WTF is that supposed to mean ? Are we now needing your permission to engage in healthcare talk ?

Dude , you do have something to say, no doubt, but you were never taught much diplomacy and you annoy the daylights out of everyone you engage.

I suggest you reeducate yourself and find out that some immigrants and illegals and "newcomers" are quite a boon to our society and pay taxes too.

Oh, things change big boy and I think this is one issue that needs to change, otherwise, your wonderful society is gonna go further down the crapper, and you are part of the flush.

[Anarcissie]

WereBear: 'Why is health care so expensive?

First, it is because we are providing profit for private health insurance companies. Most figures I've seen quote 1/3 as the profit for the insurance company. ...'

If there is a 33% ROI why aren't more capitalists rushing into the business, thus increasing competition and improving the services (or at least the pretenses) while reducing prices?

[chris]

Larry in LeftLand, you wrote:

"...Chris is a paranoid racist. He claims Brooklyn as his home ,but for all we know Buddy could be stroking away in the Mississippi Delta, working on his screenplay that nobody wants to buy."

I have, in fact, sketched out a screenplay that combines a little science-fiction with some islamic terrorism in Michael-Crichton style. Let's hope it sells. I have another that deals with America in the 1950s.

As for where I live and the wonders of the internet, yes, it's true, I could be writing from the Mississippi River Delta or my cubicle in a Hollywood production studio. Or Brooklyn. Or the northern panhandle of Idaho. Feel free to choose the location you like best.

You wrote:

"I think he see a black man and runs home and hides under the bed. Pretty tough guy on the keyboard though."

Larry, have you ever seen a living black person? Based on the demographics of your lily-white Canadian hamlet, it's possible you have never encountered these strange beings. LessBridgians seem to be some lost tribe that has had scant contact with the wider world.
I wrote:

"There can be no discussion of Universal Healthcare until the US can keep undeserving people away."

You reponsded:

"WTF is that supposed to mean ? Are we now needing your permission to engage in healthcare talk ?"

Okay, as one of the slow learners in the special ed classes in LessLand, I will relieve your confusion.

No substantive discussion of Universal Healthcare in the US can occur until we are able to prevent unauthorized people from obtaining free healthcare paid for by US taxpayers.

Every nation with universal healthcare has strict rules for eligibility. Americans cannot dash over the border into Canada for free healthcare.

But based on US citizenship laws, a pregnant Mexican woman who illegally enters the US and gives birth in the US, has given birth to a US citizen.

The new citizen cannot be deported. Neither can the mother of the new citizen. That means both are eligible to receive social services provided by US taxpayers.

If we were to provide Universal Healthcare to ALL citizens, as some people are demanding, those cradle-to-grave healthcare services would be available to the new US citizen and his/her illegal alien mother.

The availability of free lifetime healthcare to US citizens means illegal aliens would swamp the country in a tidal wave of illegal entries. It would take millions of border patrollers to stop the flow of illegals coming to the US from Mexico and Canada. An iimpossible task.

Or, we could change our citizenship laws to exclude children born on US soil to illegal-alien mothers.

You wrote:

"...you were never taught much diplomacy and you annoy the daylights out of everyone you engage."

Apparently I annoy you. My advice is for you to stop reading my posts.

You wrote:

"I suggest you reeducate yourself and find out that some immigrants and illegals and "newcomers" are quite a boon to our society and pay taxes too."

I am well aware of the good and the bad of immigration.

Just to set you straight, I support a guest-worker program. The US cannot stop illegal drugs coming into the US. It has equally limited success stopping the flow of illegal aliens. It is better to change the laws than continuously fail to enforce existing laws.

We must also eliminate the minimum wage. Illegal aliens already accept pay that is less than minimum wage. Thus, they will gladly fill those low-paying jobs, especially if they don't have to worry about deportation if they're caught working (what an irony!).

We must also end the quotas on issuance of H1-B work visas, which are the visas issued to high-tech workers. Our lawmakers are too paranoid to acknowledge that US companies can employ high-tech workers IN India. The workers can work from home. However, given a choice, many would move to the US where they would then pay taxes and spend their money.

Larry from Less_than_Average concludes:

"Oh, things change big boy and I think this is one issue that needs to change, otherwise, your wonderful society is gonna go further down the crapper, and you are part of the flush."

Canada is a nice country. You've got 33 million people up there. Most live within sight of the US border. Keep this in mind Larry. There are about 33 million blacks in the US, enough to re-populate your country.

You live in a country of vast expanses. Most are vacant because no one wants to live a million miles from civilization. Meanwhile, 85% of Canada's trade is with the US.

That means Canada is almost part of the US. Based on the near-total dependence of Canada on the US, I can see why you want the healthcare issue settled to your satisfaction.

However, if the US adopts the Canadian system of healthcare, the US would come one step closer to annexing a sparsely populated country rich in natural resources.

[chris]

Justin K, you wrote:

"As for NY's muslim community and being under heavy observation by the NY Police Department. well, I think there's a law about racial profiling."

You can believe any goofy idea you like, but police departments profile every day, and I, for one, am damn glad they do.

For along time there was very little police presence in my neighborhood. That began to change after 9/11. In the last two years police presence has multiplied from early post 9/11 levels.

First we saw one uniformed cop around the neighborhood subway stop over a limited number of hours each day. Now there are two or three cops on foot patrol around my small neighborhood at all times. One or two of the three can be found around the subway stop almost 24 hours a day.

The police precinct house is on the edge of a muslim neighborhood. The cops patrol from the precinct house through the muslim neighborhood to the subway stop, which takes them through my neighborhood.

The muslim are largely Pakistanis. Many are obviously fundamentalists. Many look remarkably like osama bin laden with their clothing style and the trim of their beards. Meanwhile, their wives, always covered head-to-toe in black chadors or hijabs, walk at least 10 feet behind them.

Some of the Pakistani women are married to less fundamental muslim men. They wear traditional clothing that is more colorful that leaves their faces uncovered.

Meanwhile, the FBI is also keeping an eye on this community. They have good reason. Money has been sent to terrorists from this community.

Meanwhile, it's obvious the FBI and NYPD believe it is possible that terrorist activities are underway in this Pakistani neighborhood.

[Larry Less Priveleged]

Well, it is quite obvious you have not travelled much, either to Canada or other parts of the world.

People that have taken the time to see other cultures tend to view them in a much different light than you do Big Boy.
I guess this is also a contributing factor in this healthcare debate that is going on. Too many cement headed people unwilling to accept change and preventing the overhaul so desparately needed.

You did get one thing right Christo. We are an expansive country that does have a multitude of natural resources and don't think since we do so much cross border trade we would welcome annexation by the US. We would beat you to death with our hockey sticks before that happens.

Oh, one last thing. Don't be showing up at one of our International airports in July with your winter parka on and skis slung over your back. It doesn't work that way.
And we don't have "all you can eat buffets" in abundance, so don't begroan an absence of American food.

And if you come , I'll be sure to round up one of our 26 Black residents to greet you.

And I do annoint you : Tool of the Day.

[A Canadian]

Chris,

You come off as being "knowledgeable", but in actual fact you know absolutely nothing. You make claims about Canadians and our society, but you have no clue. Have you ever been to Canada? Obviously not, otherwise you would not make such ignorant comments.

Do people hate you in real life like they do in cyber space? Maybe you should ask yourself why????????

[chris]

Larry of Lestbridge, you wrote:

"Well, it is quite obvious you have not travelled much, either to Canada or other parts of the world."

On what did you base this conclusion?

You wrote:

"And we don't have "all you can eat buffets" in abundance, so don't begroan an absence of American food."

Why is that? Are there still food shortages in Canada?

You wrote:

"And if you come , I'll be sure to round up one of our 26 Black residents to greet you."

The number of blacks in LessBridge is probably about 26. Perhaps it's news to you that few blacks live in your country. That's neither good nor bad, but it is a fact. Therefore, there's no reason for me to think you encounter blacks in your daily life.

It's been my observation that Canadians have an obsession with the US because Canada depends on the US for so much. I've noticed that that dependence breeds some ill will.

In case you were wondering, Americans don't spend much time discussing Canada. Many Americans cannot name the Canadian Prime Minister. If you were to ask them if not knowing his name is an embarrassment, they would say "Why? Who cares?"

[chris]

A Canadian, you wrote:

"You make claims about Canadians and our society, but you have no clue."

I'm always open to learning. Which of my statements about Canada and/or Canadians is incorrect?

[chris]

On another note:

Roger's comments are excellent.

[lc2]

Right ... and with that, officially chris's second positive comment in his tenure terrorizing the good people of this blog, I suggest that he and Roger found their own blog. It'll be a great place for them to stroke each other's egos, convince one another and anyone who dares to present a differing opinion that US-style capitalism is a perfect system, and most importantly, assure each other that their weenies are not as dimunitive as they fear.

[wizman]

Still seems like a liability issue.

Doctors that operate on humans have INCREDIBLY HIGH premiums for malpractice insurance and the like, but if the dog has to be put down then Paris can get herself a new one.

Insurance for both the doctor and patient are big issues, and not relieved by leaving all patients to the whim of capitalism.

[Stargeezer]

Chris,
The illegal mothers of US born citizens are deported every day. Most, if not all, choose to take thier children with them to thier home country. Those children, I think, have dual citizenship.

[Larry In Less Bridge]

Hey Chris,

If and when you do a study on Canada, you will find that we are a very multicultural society. Black , white, brown, and accepting minorities are part of who we are. Plenty of blacks from all walks of life. Very important sector of our population. Most work too.

The other retaliatory statements you make just reiterate your huge ignorance, but this comes as no surprise, as your paranoia of the Muslims in your neighbourhood attest.

I do know for a fact that these Muslims are not engaged in terroristic activities against the US, but you specifically. In fact, they are coming around tonite to collect you, and you then will be held against your will in an undisclosed mosque, where you will be read passages fromthe Koran. You will be fed Pakistani dishes, learn the Pakistani language, and will be outfitted in favoured Pakistani clothing.

Sometimes this is the only treatment for bigot racists, and upon completion, you might see things in a different light.

Anyway you racist Buffoon, you may be one prime example of why some people around the world aren't exactly enamoured with Americans. I am not going to waste anymore time sparring with you, because I know unemployed screenwriters have far too much time on their hands and your substance abuse will only fuel your further rantings here at this blog. Your status as a life loser was made evident when it becmae evident you were a racist and bigot.

Oh btw, do you cause such mayhem and nonsense at other blogs too ? What will you do when Office Depot repo's your computer ? Make crank phone calls ?

[Justin K.]

Chris you say,
"You can believe any goofy idea you like, but police departments profile every day, and I, for one, am damn glad they do."

There was once a man that locked up people just because they where jewish. I have a feeling that both you and him would agree with racial profiling. I think his name was Adolf Hitler.

[chris]

Justin K, like I said, you can believe what you like, but police departments profile heavily. How else do they decide where to send most manpower.

In New York City, over 90% of violent crime is committed by blacks and hispanics. The violent crime occurs in specific neighborhoods, in specific housing projects, or nearby.

Some police precinct houses are located in or adjacent to a few housing projects to keep a lid on crime. That's not only profiling, it's profiling entire neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, whether you care to believe it or not, whites and asians are much less prone to committing violent crimes. Hence, there's less need for police to keep a constant presence in asian and white neighborhoods. And they don't, because they are busy fighting crime where it occurs -- in black and hispanic neighborhoods in NYC.

[chris]

Larry_in_less_diversity_land:

According to your government, about 2% of Canadians are black, compared with about 12% in the US.

According to the government of Lethbridge, the percentage of blacks in your town is about a quarter of one percent.

[Justin K.]

I'm not denying that racial profiling is not common practice with cops and other such law enforcement. What I am saying is that there is a reason it's illegal and perhaps this particular police department could use a visit from internal affairs. Police don't get to pick the laws they want to follow. Even though some of them act like they have that privilege. Oh well, I suppose there's no way that your going to change your mind on this So lets get back to the real topic of Children Deserving Veterinary Care.

[Larry in Lethbridge]

Chris, you are an ignorant racist bigot. Probably insecure in most environments as real men of substance would not cower and be afraid and show fear like you do here at this innocent little blog.

I hope you have fun when you become acquainted with the Muslim faith when they come and get you soon. Please be sure to report on your time spent with your newest neighbors.

[chris]

Justin K, you wrote:

"I'm not denying that racial profiling is not common practice with cops and other such law enforcement."

Profiling is the basis for allocating police manpower across the entire country. But, hey, believe what you want.

You wrote:

"What I am saying is that there is a reason it's illegal and perhaps this particular police department could use a visit from internal affairs."

The NYPD does have an internal affairs department and you can be sure the locations of all precinct houses are known to everyone in the police department as well as every citizen who cares to check their locations.

The only people with a serious beef about profiling are criminals. They object to it because it works.

Compstat, the computerized police crime-fighting system, profiles neighborhoods. Bill Bratton, currently chief of police in LA, initiated this system in NY City. When he became police chief in LA, he introduced it there.

[roger]

i gather that there are folks here who read my comments regarding the demonstrated and well documented failings of both socialist ideology and planned economies (read nearly anything that robert conquest has written) and conclude that i have sympathy for all unintended consequences resulting from the economic model which we refer to as extractive capitalism. we would do well to recognize that capitalism has its failings and the folks who fail within a capitalist economy are often those who do not negotiate the matters of employment, training and business well. often these are folk who do not have sufficient education and thus do not compete for employment as well or as efficiently as those who are better prepared. the reasons for being poorly equipped for competition are varied.

do we abandon a system which serves the majority well and has lifted the living standards for the majority to high levels because a minority fails to compete well or do we strenghten the safety net. the reason many are able to begin with nothing and build a comfortable life for themselves and their children is because of the opportunities afforded these folks by free market ideas and extractive capitalism. ask many recent immigrants about how the rules of free market trade and employment have benefited them in this country and one may see the positive aspects of our circumstances. to imply however that i approve of or am fond of all of the unintended consequences of competetive economy is to mistate my comments. some still pick cotton by hand and live in desperate poverty in alabama eighty years after james agee documented the abject poverty surrounding these injured souls. when marx insisted that all wealth is theft from the masses he was grossly overstating the relationship between those who own and those are employed.

[Dawn]

Barbara, I just wanted to say thank you for your blog and in particular this topic of child health care. It along with several other synchronistic topics came together in my own blog. I hope you don't mind that I included a couple of quotes from yours. I had a flashback to Jonathan Swift's essay "A Modest Proposal" while reading Roger's first post. And then my son wrote about 'cheesy tots' for breakfast and I thought maybe Swift should have included recipes with his essay....
http://wordsogold.blogspot.com/

[Justin K.]

Did you enjoy having that last word Chris? Racial profiling and profiling are two different topics. Just like the war On Terrorism and the Iraq war are two different wars. You might as well say "My apple tastes just like my orange!" But the real Question is this. How do I keep letting you drag me in to these debates?

[roger]

about the time the left ceases these insipid comparisions between the bush administration and the third reich, and the enlightened races in amsterdam rethink their mercy killings, and barbara writes anything which imparts the gravitas, measure, and ballast of gullivers travels is the time i will miread barbaras transparent satire.

[Larry in Less Bridge]

I think Roger and Chris are the same person. Rog tries to disguise it by neglecting his shift key, and Chris makes it legit by complimenting Rog's commentary. Sad little individuals.

[chris]

The following commentary about European healthcare appeared in today's (8/3/07) Wall Street Journal. The writer is a member of the Italian Chamber of Deputies:

Sicko Europe
By DANIELE CAPEZZONE
August 3, 2007; Page A9

Rome

We live in an age of unprecedented medical innovation. Unfortunately, most of today's cutting-edge research is conducted outside Europe, which was once a pioneer in this field. About 78% of global biotechnology research funds are spent in the U.S., compared to just 16% in Europe. Americans therefore have better access to modern drugs. One result is that in the U.S., the annual death rate from cancer is 196 per 100,000 people, compared to 235 in Britain, 244 in France, 270 in Italy and 273 in Germany.

It is both a tragedy and an embarrassment that Europe hasn't kept up with the U.S. in saving and improving lives. What's to blame? The Continent's misguided policies and state-run health-care systems. The reasons vary from country to country, but broadly speaking, the custodians of public health budgets aren't devoting the necessary resources to get patients the most modern and advanced medicines, and are happier with the status quo. We often see news headlines about promising new cures and vaccines next to headlines about patients who can't get life-saving drugs as politicians impose ever stricter prescription controls on doctors.

The human toll can be measured in deaths and unnecessary suffering. It also costs us a lot of money. Prevention is cheaper than treatment. Modern medicine can prevent many medical complications that would otherwise require hospitalization and other expensive care. For every euro spent on new medicine, national health-care systems could save as much as €3.65 in later treatments, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research study.

This situation is especially dire in Italy. The government has capped spending on pharmaceuticals at 13% of total health-care expenditures while letting expenses for infrastructure and staff skyrocket. From 2001 to 2005, general health expenses in Italy grew by 31% while expenditure on medicines increased a mere 1.7%. Italian patients might well have been better off if the reverse was the case, but the state bureaucrats who make these decisions refuse to acknowledge the benefits of advanced drugs.

Also as a result, pharmaceutical research in Italy is falling behind even faster than in the rest of Europe. In 2004, pharmaceutical R&D spending was €3.9 billion in Germany, €3.95 billion in France and €4.78 billion in Britain, compared to only €1.01 billion in Italy.

Part of the problem is that regional authorities manage most of Italy's health-care spending. A strike by health-care personnel has an immediate impact on the region, but the consequences of cutting the budget for medicines are only felt in the long term and distributed across the nation. Hence, local authorities continue to focus on personnel and infrastructure in an age when medical research has become the most efficient way to improve public health.

Most recently, some Italian regions decided to drastically expand the scope of reference pricing, in open defiance of the central government. Reference pricing is used in most European countries to reduce government spending on medicine and is one of the reasons the Continent is lagging behind in pharmaceutical research. New drugs are grouped with existing drugs used to treat the same medical condition, and the government typically limits reimbursement to the cheapest price in the reference group. This way, patients are discouraged from using the most modern and more expensive medicine.

The Italian regions, however, are taking reference pricing one step further by grouping together drugs that do not necessarily have identical therapeutic effects. This way, the reference groups grow larger, and the regions can save more money. But patients are forced to choose between paying high out-of-pocket expenses or the risk of taking the wrong medicine.

This is a tragic state of affairs in a country with a higher natural demand for advanced medicine than most others in Europe. The older people get, the more likely they are to get ill, and today 20% of Italians are 65 years of age or older -- by far the largest percentage of any European country. The proportion is projected to rise to 24.5% by 2020.

Italian leaders have a responsibility to prevent parochialism from undermining public health and pharmaceutical research. But it is worth repeating that the combination of an aging population and an inefficient health-care system is a European, not exclusively Italian, problem.

It is time for politicians and regulators to confront our backward health-care systems and unleash the powers of medical research. Besides expanding drug budgets, European countries should work together to deregulate the pharmaceutical industry -- for instance, by speeding up the approval process for new drugs. The EU can better ensure that drug patents are adequately protected both in Europe and around the world against compulsory licensing and other infringements. Finally, we should give medical researchers tax incentives to slow the brain drain to the U.S. -- much like Ireland is attracting artists with favorable tax laws. We Europeans are getting older; we should be getting wiser, healthier and happier, too.

Mr. Capezzone is the president of the productivity committee of the Italian Chamber of Deputies.

[Elaine Vigneault]

Let me make my main point again:

Pet health insurance is property insurance.

That's why it can be so cheap - the insurance companies can take risks with pet lives they cannot take with human lives.

For that reason, the analogy is wrong and dangerous.

[nobrainer]

Just an example of privatization of a needed service which benefits the rich and the poor as does universal health care provided by the government.

In my city our water treatment was privatized in a no tender contract signed behind closed doors, bid. That company was sort of the Enron of Canada and the handling of our water treatment passed through many companies until it wound up in the control of an American company. After ten years it was decided to tender the contract. Turned out the city could do the job for half the price. And the water treatment is much better.

My life has been saved several times without me having to worry about costs. I have worked, still pay taxes, and raised two successful children who also pay taxes and help in the community rather than costing the community.

Our hospitals do world class research. Your doctors consult with ours. They use methods and research done in Canada.

Why would I want to pay twice as much to a for profit company? We have a lower infant mortality and can afford to deal with incipient epidemics immediately. To go to the States I have to take out a special insurance policy to cover the most minor mishap.

For the United States to have 46 million without health insurance is an unending shame you must live with whenever you visit another country or have a tourist go to the United States. Lack of universal health care provided through taxes is the equivalent of the segregation laws which took a hundred and fifty years to terminate in lw though not in fact and to-day the supreme court of the United States is quickly reversing the benefits of terminating segretion legally.

Health care in Canada is paid for through taxes. There is a huge saving in paper work, the doctors are happy as they are always paid and can afford to do work on prevention. Per capita the costs are about half those of the United States and though I may have to wait for a face lift and pay for it, I get instant care when I need instant care. I don't understand why an American is so afraid of government handling health care. Until Reagan et co. government handled food standards, transportation, the military, and so on. Before government took over you didn't know what you would get when you bought pepper. Now you do. Lobbyists are the ones who most want to dismantle government control of public lands, water and so on. They pay a lot to have private anything since private means profit.

As to the concept that Canada depends on the United States because most of our trade is done with the United States. News for you - if we halted the trade you be stuck in your driveway. When the United States wanted to stop an oil deal with China they could have cared less. They came to Canada and got what they wanted. They needed it to run their energy plants, factories etc. so they could ship cheap good to you guys who would rather see a person uninsured, out of work, and on the street than pay an American a living wage and make you have to do with fewer doodads, clothes and what have you.

[Chris S.]

In America there is no real concept of the greater good. Selfishness is seen as a virtue. The poor have been trained to believe that if they can just find the right magic bullet "they gonna git rich too". So you have working people voting against their own interests and supporting politicians and policies that aren't good for them.

[chris]

nobrainer, you wrote:

"As to the concept that Canada depends on the United States because most of our trade is done with the United States. News for you - if we halted the trade you be stuck in your driveway."

Statements like the preceding further the view that Canadians are, in fact, no-brainers.

There are three major forms of markets: Monopoly, Pure Competition, and Monopsony.

A Monopolist has the power to control pricing. The Monopolist enjoys some huge advantage over his competitors that allows him to set any price for his goods or services.

In Pure Competition, pricing is determined by the forces of many competitors butting heads.

In a Monopsony, there is One Major Buyer of goods and services. The US Defense Department is a good example.

Or the US Auto Industry relative to parts makers in Canada.

When the manufacturers attempt to play hardball with a Monopsonist, they can find themselves with NO WORK and no way to pay their laborers.

It's foolish to believe Canada could withstand the self-inflicted of cutting off car parts to the US. There are other suppliers around the globe, some of which will be found in China. Canada has no desire or willingness to see its manufacturing base hop over the Asia.

You provided a dumb example:

"When the United States wanted to stop an oil deal with China they could have cared less."

Oil is oil. Define the word "fungible." Oil is sold on the WORLD market. Car parts are highly engineered items that are produced by sophisticated manufacturers. Oil, in comparison, is nothing.

You added:

"They came to Canada and got what they wanted. They needed it to run their energy plants, factories etc. so they could ship cheap good to you guys who would rather see a person uninsured, out of work, and on the street than pay an American a living wage and make you have to do with fewer doodads, clothes and what have you."

Yeah. Canada is a Mercantile Economy. Everything sold in Canada is manufactured in Canada. You're a moron. I know Canada is insecure about its ability to compete with the US and I know there are Canadian Content laws that affect many goods and services. But the laws only reflect what every knows: that Canadians don't buy Canadian goods unless the quality is high and the price is right.

Meanwhile, WalMart has many stores in Canada, as do other US discounters and Canadian stores known to sell products produced outside the western hemisphere.

[Lydia]

Dear Roger...
I realize that nothing I say will change your mind, but since this is an open forum, I'd like to have my say. This is an ethical question, about the apples.

Even President Bush has said the we need universal health care. Bad as it is, medicare, at 3-4% overhead, is still the best run medical insurance plan there is. Private insurances run at 30-40% overhead. You, as a GS employee, you have a better health care insurance than the GI's now serving in Iraq.

NOT EVERYONE can get state aided medical treatment. My 48 year old, nephew had bladder cancer. He waited for 8 months trying to get on state aided medical. He finally had to go to the emergency room and have emergency surgery. He needs to have the same procedure done every 3 months... Yes, the hospital treated him, yes, they gave him the surgery, and YES the gave him the $20K bill.. he cannot qualify for state aided medical (and is too young for medicare...) He is a single male and under 65, No children. His yearly income is under the poverty level between 5-6K but that does not matter to the "State Funded medical insurance."
Emergency aide is the MOST expensive medical insurance there is.

DO I think that every one should be afforded as good a health care system as the people in congress and our pet have? YES.

You state that you work within a flawed system, yes, and we need to write our national leaders to rectify this problem.

If the medical insurance was run by the career civil servant, instead of the “old boy” network, we would have a chance at a reasonable cost medical insurance, and it would cost you less out of pocket.

Universal health care is NOT socialize medicine... and even if it is... so what... look at all of the other nations of the world and see how someone else's health care is really working. Every child and adult has only full health care benefits in some countries. Is America really doing what is best for it's people? When we can allow a child to die because their health care ran out?? What kind of Doctors and medical professionals do we have? How callous are we? Yes, if you have a bushel of apples and a child has none, you need to share. Is there any ethical or religious basis that allows you to hoard them? Virtually every religious book written says.. you share what you have with others. "to those who are given much, much is required." I really don't care how much you pay in taxes or fees or what ever other cost you think are too much to come out of your pocket. We are one of the lowest taxed countries in the world.

[doggiesmama]

If you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em.

Nuff said.
Too many damm kids in this world to begin with, And way too many fat women

[fishmama]

My husband and I can afford healthcare for ourselves as well as our wonderful dog.

If you can't afford your kids don't have them. We would not have rescued our dog from the shelter if we could not afford him.

Getting a dog involves decision making, planning, open communication,and budgeting. Kids should be no different.

[Yourekiddingright]

Why are children so important to insure? Why not adults? Wouldn't it be best for society if we gave our BEST oats to the horses plowing the fields? Children do not work or provide anything but POTENTIAL to society. Until they do something, like get a job and pay taxes, they are a DRAIN on society.

I have several pets but do not have insurance for them. I do not have insurance for myself and since I am a childfree married woman, I can't get insurance. But if I had a kid, they'd be throwing stuff at me.

I'll stick with my cats.

[Ash]

I am unclear on how health care for children (which should really be health care for *all*) and health care for pets relate. If I take my pets to the animal hospital, I will have to hand over my credit card and pay off the debt myself. If I decide to take out pet insurance, I will be funding that myself.

Similarly, if I decide to buy a yacht, take a trip to India, or sign up for private violin lessons, I will be responsible for paying my debts.

What does any of this have to do with health care for people? It's a shame that the US prides itself on being a First World country and a superpower, but millions of people can't get health insurance. Yet this has nothing to do with pets.

Yes, I have pets, and yes, they run up my credit card debt on occasion. But...is this relevant? I think not.

[fishmama]

I forgot to add where do you get off thinking that the country should pay for the insurance of your kids? They're YOURS not OURS.

My folks worked their tails off to have insurance for myself and my sibling and did not expect handouts so neither should you.

Oh, and those who want to push for socialized health care just for the kids, don't piss and moan when your taxes go though the roof and you lose the precious child credits.

[Barbara_writes_more_drivel_again]

Barbara, what, exactly does healthcare for children have to do with healthcare for pets? You're writing as if the Government is paying for healthcare for pets and it's taking away from da childrun.

Pets are getting healthcare because their owners pay for it. What a novel concept and it's something I'd like to see parents do for their kids.

If the woman in the article can't afford $80 for her kid's tooth, she couldn't afford to have a child in the first place.

[andi]

Why is it that so many folks resent how others spend their money. So someone pays for insurance for their pets-what of it?
They choose to have pets, they choose to get insurance, they have to pay for it...the government does not have some magical fund that pet owners get free health care out of. No one gives a pet owner, help, no tax breaks, no food stamps, no free obedience traying, No preschool help, nothing. Parents get lots of help from public monies and yet want more every time we turn around.
I am sick of hearing that "It not right that kids go with out health care" - let me tell you what's not fair. It's not fair to have adults who are taxed to pay for that health care - have to go with out care to fund someone else's kids. Just because someone is over 18 ( or now 25) does not mean that they should have to fund other folks care. I work full time, pay taxes - and because of child credits, I pay more than parents who make the same as me- and for years I didn't have health insurance ( still would be able to afford it if my employer didn't pay for it.) yet all that time I and many others like me were paying for people's kids to have Health Care, Head Start, WIC, Well Baby visits, Free Immunizations, ect and ad nauseum. When I was unemployed I could not get Food Stamps or Rental assistance But parents who make twice what I make now can get both...as well as free health care for the entire bloody family. Whether or Not the parents are legally here or not, they would get covered and get benefits because their kids are citizens. ( ANd for those of you who want to paint us as racist for resenting that _ How about I illegally move to Canada and start taking benefits just because I feel like it. Illegals TAKE way, way more than they "put back". According to the Catholic Church - the average iillegal takes 40,000 in benefits and puts in around 9,000 in taxes - mostly sales taxes. ) There's also heating assistance, here and Cash Benefits and other assistance.
That far too many Folks with out kids can't ever hope to get. All paid for by taxes. Get it? Parents get benefits out the wazoo.
Kids get benefits with out ever doing a thing for it - except being born.
Yeah, Yeah, I can hear it "They didn't ASK to be born." Well who amongst us did? Our parents made the decision for us just as the parents of today made a decision to have kids...about time they stepped up to the plate and took care of the responsibilities that come with that decision.

And as for the old "It takes a village" saw...spare me..when i have a say in how those kids are raised and can discipline each and evrey child as I see it that will have some bearing in any argument...until then, it's simply a way to grab other folks time money and resources.

[snickerdoodle]

This country is so flippin' child-centric, it makes me physically ill. What about the elderly? Is anyone worrying about them? Of course not; they've lived a long life, so they should just be forgotten - make room for that screaming, polluting little baby. Yup, the one that creates landfill with it's filthy, e-coli infested diapers. The one that has not make ONE CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. While we're at it, let's insure the illegal immigrants; the ones who come into this country and have their little bundles of illegal joy. Let's pay for their delivery. Let's make them legal citizens.

So while you people are complaining about people who are PAYING to insure their pets, why don't you think about the dollars you are contributing to brats that don't even belong to you. And the illegal ones that are shat out in the US every friggin' day. Think about it.

[DeeM]

I personaly don't want to live in a nanny state where no one takes personal responsibility for anything. This is an age where we have birth control that is very effective. If you can't afford to feed or care for your offspring do not have any. The people who buy pet insurance chose to spend their money on that instead of something else. Its not my business what they spend their money on. However these same people are NOT asking ME to help pay for their pet insurance where some breeders ARE asking ME to help pay their kids insurance. I see a huge difference here.

"If you can't feed em don't breed em" Its called personal responsibility and I wish more people would take a course in it. I think it is wicked to just squirt out children without a thought about how you are going to provide for them. Its like casting their futures to the wind and hoping things turn out ok somehow.

[nancy]

DeeM,

The same so called parents that expect us to pander to their kids are living under the delusion of the "it takes a village" crap. It only takes a village when it comes to using OUR money to suit THEIR needs.

It is none of your business as to how we spend our hard earned money. In fact, we are taking a nice long 2 week trip to Europe next year. Oh the horrors!!! All the money that my husband and I earned is being wasted! I could donate it to the March of Dimes. I'm not so ha ha!!!!

[Cayla]

I'm confused. If I'm understanding Barbara's argument correctly, it's bad for me to pay out-of-pocket for my pets because other people don't have health insurance for their kids. Is that it?

And if I can buy pet insurance for a dog for $33, that's bad because other people can't afford health insurance for their kids. Right?

Perhaps I could get pet insurance so cheaply because the lifetime maximum I'll spend on any one animal will be, even if I buy every surgery and test and treatment imaginable, less than $20,000 (to be generous). But that wouldn't even start to cover a child -- labor and delivery is going to be nearly half that, depending on variables such as anesthesia, hospital chosen, complications, etc. That completely ignores any pregnancy-related costs. And then once it's born, there are all the well baby visits, vaccinations, annual check-ups ... and that's for a perfectly healthy child who's never sick a day (and how many of those exist in the real world?).

I guess I still need someone to explain to me why the costs I have chosen to take on and bear myself are bad, while the costs parents have taken on but want to pass on to others are good. Anyone? Anyone?

[fishmama]

I guess I still need someone to explain to me why the costs I have chosen to take on and bear myself are bad, while the costs parents have taken on but want to pass on to others are good.

Because children are the only beings that count. Instead of "wasting" money on animals that can be easily replaced (not) you should be using those funds for kids because they are soooo exalted and irreplaceable!!

[UK visitor]

If I wanted to spend MY money on kids' health I would have a child. I don't. I prefer to spend MY money that is left after the government gets its cut (tax which provide for entitle-breeders) on MY interests. NOT YOURS. If that includes vets bills or pet insurance so be it. At least I don't demand other people stump up for my choices! And there I was thinking the USA wasn't a communist state.