« The Difference between Republicans and Democrats | Main | Laugh of the Day »



No one has ever made the argument that we have the best doctors and best medical facilities in the world. That is not the point, and has never been the point. The point is that the cost makes it unaccessible to those without blue chip health insurance.

Why you continue to use Stossel as someone to quote is a joke. He has credibility zero on most issues, and even less on this one. Let me ask you one question, if things are so great here, why are US companies sending some of their employee's overseas for operations?http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20878

Can I ask what credentials does Stossel have on this issue, and from his past track record on any issue? You highlight what he says as if he is an health care expert. I'll let you in on a little secret, he is not. Now if you want to discuss what experts in the field of health care think and say, why not use someone such as George C. Halvorson (Kaiser Permanente chairman and CEO). His books Epidemic of Care: A Call for Safer, Better, and More Accountable Health Care, and Health Care Reform Now!: A Prescription for Change would offer anyone a better understanding of the topic than anything Stossel has ever written. I would think he would be far more a reliable source than Stossel would be. It would like someone citing me as a more informed expert on the real estate market in Minnesota than you. It simply is not so. Below are a few found on Amazon.com of Halvorson's books:

“ This well-written book describes…in great depth the many problems that health care in the United States encounter…” (International Journal of Integrated Care, 2 August 2004)

"...one of the more lucid explanations of what is going on in US health care...the authors are well qualified to do the explaining..." (British Medical Journal, 12 July 2003)

"There is much to like about this book. Everyone can have a role in Halvorson and Isham's plan." (New England Journal of Medicine, August 28, 2003)

"The authors don't miss a trick; they have covered all the bases." (Inquiry, Fall 2003)

"...the writing style is very accessible, and the discussion includes points that may not be as commonly discussed outside of medical schools." (E-Streams, December 2003)

“George Halvorson’s timing couldn’t be better. This is a book that everyone who is searching for solutions should read.”—Helen Darling, president, National Business Group on Health

“Halvorson’s comprehensive approach, rooted in a practical understanding of the complexities of American health care, helps us focus on what matters.”—Ian Morrison, Ph.D., healthcare futurist and author, Healthcare in the New Millennium

“This book is powerful and compelling. It's just the right book for this time.”—Jeffrey C. McGuiness, president, HR Policy Association


Gee, Greg. You cite a (partisan) link which has a blurb stating that some companies are "considering" sending employees overseas for health care - but not doing it due to union intervention. And that some people who are uninsured or needing costmetic surgery are electing to go overseas.

500,000 people out of a nation of 300 million is something that is "making a statement?"

Over and over, I have asserted that our health system has serious problems. My solutions, however, are quite dissimilar to yours.

As for Stossel's statements, instead of attacking the messenger, just say where he is wrong. Professor Herzlinger has pretty good credentials; many of her assertions are similar to those of Stossel.


How partisan are these links?



My point about Stossel is that he has been debunk many times in the past. Someone on this blog pointed this out already, Media Matters has a whole section of false statements and inaccuracies made by Stossel.


The link above is only page 15 of 28 citings Media Matters highlighted when Stossel's name is mentioned. So I ask, at what point after being proven wrong so many times in the past does someone lose any if not all of their credibility? My other point being what makes Stossel an expert on health care? As for solutions, I cannot recall me ever proposing any, so as to what you are speaking about I do not know.


Greg - do you read the articles you cite? The CS Monitor says that "a sliver" of employees are going overseas for health care.

Frankly; I applaud American companies for having folks go overseas, if they can get quality, less expensive health care somewhere else - go for it! As you well know, I am a huge supporter of competition. If it goes outside our borders, that is fine by me.

As for your own solutions, Greg - I have drawn conclusions from what you say. Do you really expect anyone who reads here to think that you are not a proponent of universal health care? Do you disavow this?


Actually what the articles show is a trend that is occurring in the United States business. Now the question is, is this trend going to increase or decrease in the upcoming years. Also what will be the long lasting effect to this country with this constant barrage of outsourcing? The articles indicate that the numbers of these things happening are only going to rise, and that is the point of me citing them.

Secondly, what is the constant notion of any and all competition is good for the longevity and health of this country. Do you not think it is best to preserve business here in the United States? Your tune would probably change if people in the real estate business were outsourced to people in India. The concept of it being done somewhere else is not always the answer. Tell that to any pet owner or parent whose child was playing with hazardous products that came from China. To what extent do we not outsource everything? If everything is outsourced to someplace else, who will be the consumers to purchase these products if they have no jobs to pay for these purchases? You might call this protectionism, I view it as looking out for the best interests of America, and American workers.

Finally it is so interesting how you can draw conclusion of what I think given the fact I have never stated what I thought. I wonder who you feel when people do the same to you. Your constant whining how people have viewed you as a racist at times only echoes that point. But since that is not the point let me state my position. I personally have a problem with the wealthiest country, and a country that has been a leader in the world to have a health care system that is rated 37. You seem to have no problem with that at all. I have a problem with the numbers of Americans not having insurance is increasing. To you, this again seems to be of little interests. I have problems with the mortality rate of many of the children in this country, and it seems as if you do not. My solution, a solution I have never proposed on this site is to examine what is done elsewhere. Look at what others are doing, what systems work, and what systems do not work. Look at the countries who health care systems seem to be in better shape than ours and see how any of that can be applied to the United State of America. If there is a way to get more people access to health care, do it in a more efficient way, and at a cheaper price where everyone is covered, would that not be in best interests of this country? Call me a crazy liberal or progressive as you may want to, but my interest is not one that just suits me, or some ridiculous political party.

My concern is what is best for the people of the United States, and not to parrot what comes out of some right wing think tank. If in the end that means universal care, then by all means go for it, if it means socialized medicine, then again go for it. If the answer is through private enterprise and vouchers, then let's look at it. But to deny there is a problem, or to not examine every possible solution is naive and quite frankly not very intelligent. Who knows what the final outcome might be, but to shut off any debate because you ideology opposed to it, is in my opinion not the course to take.


Gee, Greg. For a guy who seems unhappy with others drawing conclusions about what is and is not important to you - you sure seem to be doing an awful lot of it about me. (And in error, too, I might add.)

Personally, I happen to be someone who cares about people. Whether they live within the borders of Minnesota, the U.S. or the planet isn't terrifically important to me. I like to see the world improved. Generally, free markets will do that.

If someone from India can provide superior real estate services to the people in the Twin Cities - then let me compete against them! Vigorous competition promotes the best services and products. Let the buyers choose who and what they want.

The comments to this entry are closed.