"Death Panels." A most excellent term.

"Death panel" always invoke an image of a shuddering, frightened naked man who stands in front of a panel of 5 snooty, bearded Greek philosophers & aristocrats who declare that he'll be put down to death. yeah, that's NOT gonna happen anytime here in this nation, folks.

Hard to believe that the United States ranks 42nd in terms of developed nations for life expectancy. Wow. I did NOT know that.

P.S-- Joan of Arc is one of my favourite silent films of all time.

You are a voice of reason in the wilderness. I'm very sorry that you don't have the cachet of Sarah Palin, that your reason and thoughtfulness could effectively counteract her vitriol and ignorance.

To reply to your overall discussion about Universal Health Care - I have a very right wing father. He listens to Limbaugh every day, and he is very much against universal health care. Yet he is Blue Collar to the bone and has struggled at times for health care. I know that if I approach him by arguing, it turns into a shouting match. I took the approach - I do not know what needs to be done, but something needs to change. I have a good job, and every year I am asked to pay more for less. His reply - it is because of Tort reform, we need TORT reform. I explain that I do not disagree, but when TORT reform has been on our ballot in the state I live in, the limits are too small for a catastrophic screw up by a doctor. My dad says - well if we had TORT reform then it would stop the problem of paying more for less.

I do know that Malpractice insurance is way out of line, yet I have trouble understanding the issue, because I have never sued anyone.

Back to the argument, I then tell my dad, where is the figures that show TORT reform would make insurance more affordable, he says he does not know.

All I know is that I make 2x to 3x more than my father ever made in a year, and I see that medical costs are skyrocketing so that my kids will not have a chance in hell of ever affording that care. I know many businesses make workers go without full coverage until they have been with the company a few years and retail businesses avoid making workers full time to avoid providing health care options.

I know I may sound like an elitist to some, but I have trouble understanding why so many of these town meetings have blue collar workers shouting down universal health care, and saying that if the government ran health care it would be like the post office. The government will not run the health care, it may buy insurance for you – correct?

It all gets back to everyone is arguing about what is not in the bill - Death Panels, and killing grandma, and the important discussion is de-railed by idiots shouting.

I guess I will be grateful that I have a job and full coverage for now, and hopefully people in Congress will pull their heads out…..of the sand.

I feel your article on "Death Panel's" in todays Chicago Sun times is excellent. How I wish they would use your wording in these health care meetings. You have lived through such tough times and you realize how much it means to have health insurance and Medicare.

I'm an Urbana resident and lived on Cottage Grove when you lived on Washington Street. I pass your old home every Friday on my way to Sunnycrest. Keep up such good work....and God Bless you. Mary M. Ellis

As a German citizen, I may report about socialized health care with over 30 years of personal experience.

I think it is completely illogical for a state (I do not mean a U.S. state, the correct comparison would be a colony in the biological sense), so let's say colony. It is completely illogical for any kind of colony to not care for its members. Ants for example care for their young, their queen, their workers, their warriors. They build a nest that is "bigger" than any nest a single ant could build on its own and that protects them all (and actually has air condition). They may not be an ideal example, but you get it: They care.

But the current health care construct of the US is just a business model. It sells goods and services to people wo need them and can afford them. The others, those who cannot afford them, but need them nonetheless, are undesired customers. Not the target group. (focus group? english is not my native language, sorry)

This is a valid argument in itself. Anyone can sell any product to anyone he wants, excluding others by the means of market and capitalism. If you want the Rolex, you gotta pay for the Rolex. But in health care, this is unethical to the core.

The second argument I want to bring your attention to (not just Mr. Ebert's, but all of you readers) is that America seems to have demonzied terms like "socialism".

There is a big difference: The socialism to be demonized (and rightfully so) is the failed government ideas of past and current regimes of such belief, feeding the upper classes off of the rest, the selling-out-mentality, threat pressure systems and so on. But the term "socialism" itself, the political concept behind all of these fails, is valid nontheless. It's just a model, a school of thought, and no crime in itself. Also, it has never been really tried in its purest form, because human nature just isn't cut out for it: Everybody wants to cut corners, make a quick profit, get off better than the rest.

Also, it is easily demonzied, and now the idea of a social health care is equal to the ghost of North Korea in the public opinion, it seems to me. The point is: Being a bit social to each other (as opposed to antisocial, e.g. "being nice") won't tip the country into chaos or turn it into a barren wasteland of siberian proportions, also, there will be no zombies roaming the streets, eating your brains.

America, you're beautiful and the dream of many, and have been for generations. But you're also afraid of changing a winning team. The problem is: Each and every one of you is on the team, and you're by definition not winning anymore if you start cutting off the bottom 10% from health care once in a while. What about "leave no man behind"? Isn't that also a great American concept? Yes, you can. So please drag everyone along, it's the whole basic idea of the whole country. Also, it's just what you *should* be doing anyway, being well-behaved and so on.

But I get carried away. Let me just sum up:

1. Caring for every member of the society is a good thing, even it it might annoy a few shareholders.

2. Social is NOT the same as Socialism.

3. Socialism is NOT the same as any of the "socialist" governments that have been realized in the past. Those have failed, just like experiments. All of them.

Ebert: Thanks for the input from Sanity. Looking at the crowds disrupting Town Hall meetings, I ask: How has America turned its Have-Nots into We-Don't-Wants?

Whenever I look across the fence and see the needless suffering of my neighbours, I ache for them. For all they must suffer by way of pain and in a country with some of the best Hospitals in the world.

Canada isn't perfect. That's not what I'm saying. We have issues with our Health-care system, too.

However...

I had my gallbladder out back in 1995. Monthly premiums are based on your net income and if you don't earn above a certain amount, then you're covered by the Government. And so for me, that operation was free. Every doctor visit, all the tests; all of it. I had to wait 4 weeks for the actual operation, but the only thing I had to pay for was the Tylenol 222.

$12.00.

When I have earned enough to pay into the system, it's been $35.00 a month.

I went to the doctor recently; again, free. I'm not a hypochondriac or helpless when it comes to managing small things, and so I don't see a doctor that often. But when I need to to, I'd rather have my system than yours in the States; and which I think is kinda evil owing to how it came about...

Union Presentation: US vs. Canada Healthcare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npnfbF_PEVc

I lost my mom in 2006 to Cancer. She was allowed to die naturally; we didn't try to extend her life once the battle was lost and the end in sight; that was her request, what she wanted. She was made as comfortable as possible with the use of morphine and died without being hooked-up to machines and all that. She had a standing "do not resuscitate order" moreover, after suffering a stroke, earlier that same year. She was 72 yrs old and a scrub nurse back in the day; from her I learned what medicine can do, but also want it can't or shouldn't try to.

No one wants to die. But using the fear of it, the way some are doing now in the States to twist facts and manipulate their own countrymen into opposing much needed reforms to the heath-care system - does the rot never end in America? How deep does that cancer go? To prey upon the sick and the dying so as to make a buck.... I understand why, but it still makes me shake my head.

After hearing the most outrageous and malicious lies told by Americans about the Canadian health care system (and I am convinced beyond dissuasion that every person spouting the lies knew full well that they were lies, and gloried in the fact), I have no expectation whatsoever that anything will come of Obama's initiative. Too many people like the fact that the poor don't get adequate health care; they see it as just punishment for the horrendous moral failing of not being wealthy.

But what gets me is how many of the anti-fair health care protesters are over 65 and on Medicare themselves. So it's okay for them to get Viagra on the government's dime but it's communism for a child to get the measles vaccine the same way?

Why is health not considered a right in your country? You can afford it, more than most countries, yet it seems you are being run by insurers.

In the UK I admit our healthcare system leaves much to be desired, but at least the treatment is there to those that need it, with no bias or prejudice against the less wealthy. In addition we do have a small private sector. When my father had cancer last year, although he was on private care for the majority (as you get your own room instead of being on a ward) towards the end of his life we had to turn to the NHS, and we were glad of the extra support they gave us.

It seems America can lead the world in every way except the most basic of human rights!

Hello Roger,

Your question is valid, but when I look at it, I doubt there is any one real answer. Part of it is that certain people feel that its not really the government giving you anything, its the government taking away. Also, the general notion is that if the government does it, any care administered will be done poorly. I don't really ascribe to those things myself but I see where they come from.

The Death Panel argument seems to me as one of desperation, and I think the fear mongering and stupidity it breeds is kind disgraceful. But I'm really not sure about this Obama plan, for a couple of reasons that are my own. One is the general lack of REAL information being given to me. I peruse what media outlets I traffic, and I can't find the exact words of this proposal anywhere (if anyone at this site does know where I can find this a tip off would be appreciated).

But, Randy the German, your post made me think on what you are proposing. I understand that perspective but I don't know if I can cop to it. See, I'm a 22 year old male here in the U.S, just graduated from college. The prospects of getting decent jobs are very much nil for me. Times are tough, yada yada yada. You deal. My problems are not just monetary and material, they go deeper than that and they rankle with your "nest" and "team" politics. I think you are treating the word "care" without any real seriousness behind it. You say everyone in a nation is on the same "Team," and that "caring for every memeber of the society is a good thing, even it it might annoy a few stockholders." But what is Caring, really, to you? To me, caring is more than being "social", and helping old ladies across the street. I don't seriously believe you care about everyone in germany. There's caring about Manchester United's prospects at a title shot, or who wins the super bowl, and there is CARING wether or not you have enough to eat tomorrow and so does your little sister. I care about the rest of "America" maybe slightly more than who wins the superbowl. If I have to choose the lot of you and my sister, I invariably to choose my sister. I am not so arrogant as to really say that I care equally about all people. I don't want anyoen to die horrible, horrible deaths, but I will make this world the best for my family. That's the only NEST I have. I won't drag everyone along because I can't and don't want to. Unless you can prove otherwise, that my family will get the BEST under Obama's system, I'm not behind it.

Long-winded column, when "Sarah bad, Barack Good" would have done just as well. Alexander Pope said: "Brevity is the soul of wit." Catch the essence. Sarah knows this.

It is a wonderfully Orwellian turn of phrase, feeding on people's fears of a larger and hence ever more irresponsible government. I agree with you that it has no relationship to reality, though for a different reason. "Death Panel" brings up a sinister mental image of around five 50-something, tall, thin, stooped men wearing lab coats and with horribly stern looks on their faces sitting behind a gigantic steel desk in an otherwise completely white flourescently-lit room while a feeble grandfather of four with kidney disease pleads for his life. Think of the old man from Ikiru going up against the food critic from Ratatouille and a couple others just like him. But it would never get this dramatic, as everyone most likely knows in their heart but may block out of their head during a particularly feverish rendition of Sean Hannity's radio show.

No, the process would be far more couched in deniability and any one individual decision-maker would be protected by layer upon layer of bureaucracy. Some career public servant in your state capital reviews claims on their computer screen, from 9 to 5 every day, selecting either the "Accept" or "Deny" button on every one. Don't be shocked if quite a few infirmed patients feel the negative effect of that computer mouse straying a bit too far to the right before the click.

Of course, I'm under no delusions that insurance companies aren't doing this right now as we type. It comes down to who you think will act more nobly towards their customers: an insurance company trying to keep businesses satisfied with their employees' experiences in the program and their incurred costs, or a government trying to keep voters satisfied with their experiences in the program and their incurred taxes. I believe there is no accountability whatsoever left in the current process of American democracy/republicanism/whatever the hell we are these days, so my answer is easy. At least the market may respond to your demands in a reasonable time frame (i.e., before granny kicks the bucket).

Also, where is the money for all of these extra medical treatments going to come from? It's not like raising taxes also magically raises GDP. We're going to have to actually pay for it at some point.

I believe referring to concerned, confused, frequently elderly citizens as "mobs" is pathetic. Everyone has the right to dissent and while it is obvious what you think about the dissenters, name calling does nothing to further the debate.

Ebert: Concerned they are. They don't seem confused, nor particularly elderly. I stayed away from the word "mob" in my entry. I did drop it into a reply somewhere along the way, and have changed that to "crowd."

The thing that most frightens me about the current health care debate is that we seem to have lost, as Mr. Ebert points out, that there is a marked difference between the government controlling health care, doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. and the government merely providing a way for the doctors, nurses, hospitals etc. to get paid when the poor and chronically sick need health services.

I am not poor, although I cannot afford my health costs without insurance. I have a pre-existing condition, several really, that were the result of birth defects. I don't smoke, I don't drink and I'm not morbidly obese. I do try and stay healthy and generally I've been successful.

That having been said, I need an organ transplant. And in the 21 years that I have held that eventuality off through hard work, diet and constantly paying attention to my health, moreso lately than ever I have become concerned about what will happen if my insurance company fails to pay.

And what will happen if the small business I work for and the not-for-profit my wife works for become unable to provide group plans. My fears started when my sister had emergency surgery and because it wasn't authorized by a certain time with her insurance carrier, the coverage was denied. The bill was $20,000. It took months of calls and letters to resolve the issue. Neither the insurer nor the hospital had any sympathy. This is the system people are screaming to save?

I went down the road of trying to get insured on my own in the open market several years ago while getting my post-graduate degree. At best, of the dozens of insurers I called on, maybe a quarter of them offered me emergency care only. The rest said they were sorry but they would not accept my application because I had pre-existing conditions. I was fortunate to land a job with health benefits and was equally fortunate that Illinois offers a group plan if you qualify by being uninsurable on the open market. One such qualification is being "lucky" enough to be damaged goods. And by the way, my Illinois-backed plan was $500 per month out of my pocket and the insurance provider, Blue Cross, was certainly happy to take my money when the state had my back.

What I would love to ask the shouters and the angry mob-types that are decrying Obama's attempts to make health care accessible is whether they have actually needed real, long-term, life-or-death health care. I'm all for competition; I think the better the doctor or hospital the more thay can charge. I think the more comprehensive the insurance plan, the more you should pay. I also think it is sick that anyone could look at me or any other person who is too sick or poor to be insured that our lives aren't worth saving. Because protecting a system that allows millions to be effectively denied access to the care they need is just such a statement.

Oh, and regarding tort reform: yes, ideally that would lower malpractice insurance which would lower health care costs. But ask yourself this: why would the insurance companies lower their rates that much? They have the health care industry over a barrel; the doctors need the insurance to practice...they already pay what they already pay as far as premiums...tort reform smells like a chance to increase the profit margin on malpractice insurance.

The fact is that the current health insurance system is broken, because profits can easily be exchanged for human lives.

I don't want a government clerk telling me what care I can get anymore than I need the math geeks at my current insurance company telling me. I want my doctor to tell me that stuff. And I want to be able to pay them for it without putting my family on the street.

It is sad, sad, sad that for once the government really is trying to help its people, and it might be derailed by the people it could help.

People have a right to protest programs they are not in favor of. Health care as practiced in Switzerland or Canada would probably not work here for a variety of reasons. Anyone who has dealt with, say, the Veterans Administration or any type of 'free' health clinics can give you many reasons why they prefer private health insurance. 'Death Panels' may not be a reality but they are a possibility. Do you really trust the government bureaucracy so much?
I am surprised that so many otherwise intelligent people are trying so hard to smear democratic protestors by inferring they are all gun-toting psychos incapable of rational discussion. This is having the opposite effect of its intent on the broad middle, or moderate, voters who read this and see it on the news. They correctly perceive that the vast majority of these protestors are simply exercising their democratics rights and are being demonized for doing so.

I remmember a 60 minutes piece I saw about 11 years ago: The very large american funeral companies buy all their small competitors thus setting ridiculous prices for an item people have no option but to buy when it is needed, It's that simple. If you understand this, the health care debate it's that much easier to understand. Here in Mexico City, at the beggining of this decade the most powerful hospital chain bought just about every renowned hospital, the result: my insurance premiums have gone up about 250% in the last 4 years. That type of corruptive act is certianly not new down here and I sincerely have no hope it will ever end or be the last but when I see what the US is going through when you have the example of other first world countries who are doing so much better than you in something so vital to the well-being of your citizens, it doesn't make much sense.
Sometimes being an ocasional follower is better than always trying to lead, specially if you're headed towards the precipice.
What I don't understand is how a country where your elected president won by such a landslide is so divided ? If only screaming louder meant a deeper comprehension of the facts.

Re: How has America turned its Have-Nots into We-Don't-Wants?

I personally guess it's on the conservative parties' agenda (and thus on that of many, many media channels, practically none of which are actually independent and neutral in America, it seems) to keep the people rather uneducated, and thereby controllable. Wisdom and education leads to "having an opinion of your own", which is seen as a threat to any kind of government that wants to use people as yes-people, voters, taxpayers and hopes for them them to die a month after retirment.

I'm not promoting anarchy here, but it really shakes a German tourist like me to his foundations when he is asked, queueing in line for a roller coaster ride, "You're from Germany, you say? How's old Adolf doing? Is he still alive?" or "You're from Germany? Did you come here by Greyhound?". I tell you, this is NOT exaggerated, I really was asked this by men in ther 20s on two separate occasions.

Over here, people have asked me: "Why did you build so many castles?" (in medieval times) or "For how many people has this palace been built, then?" - "One." - "But... but... that's such a waste of space!" and other highly educated questions. Also, I recently had a visitor, who didn't want to see the local concentration camp, because that'd be "too depressing. I want fun!". We then went on to see Neuschwanstein castle, which is nice, but only a concrete replica of the *real* castles, those who have seen sieges and the black death centuries ago.

But I digress. I think that at a certain point in the gaining of insight into the runnings of the world, people are still aware of their innocence (in the original latin meaning, not the sexual one), which is still quite blissful, but at the same time somehow seem to scent that any step further would lose them their educational virginity.

Those who are afraid of having to look at things from more than one perspective for the rest of their life, stay rooted where they are, vehemently defending their position (on the edge of the cliff of knowledge, desperately holding on), sometimes turning to religion or even more or less obscure sects.

The others ususally go to university. Those who do not get their spiritis crushed by the system and the peer pressure in the fraternities and sororities have a chance of actually becoming an educated cosmopolitan.

So I guess the We-Don't-Wants is the product of misinformation (or at least too little information), combined with those people's will not to develop themselves any further so as not to complicate things "unnecessary".

This results in people like S.P. who count the existence of a neighbouring continent in the wider vicinity as "experience in foreign affairs" (my, did we have a laugh over here!) as well as in really breathtaking examples of stupidity and misguided, blind "education" of average American people (like these two girls over at YT who want to convert their Hindu friend to Christianity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvVAV09-dQ8 - hilarious, but also so incredibly sad).

Since many means of education seem to be hard to reach in America (how many books does the average American own?), or at least in families where parens actively chose to stay blissfully uneducated, education is not waiting to happen. It has to be sought, but the media (with exception of the internet) don't really seem to have an interest in actual, factual education. They serve tidbits of docutainment on the flying speed of bald eagles or other subjets, but - at least in my experience - not really much real information on the subjects that count. Like the French revolution, the Enlightenment and others. Also, there seems to be no real news on the news from outside the country.

Again, I digress. Sorry.

Summing up again:

1. Education is a "Holschuld". This is a german word which does not seem to have a corresponding expression in english. It translates to "debt to be discharged at the domicile of the debtor" and means: If you want it, you have to get it. Nobody will deliver it to your door.

2. People need to know there is more to know out there than can ever be learned, yet it is worth trying every day.

3. People should know that any media is susceptible to manipulation. This starts with a photographer choosing the content (view) of his lens. It automatically cuts off everything around it, which still may be related to the picture's content. So, anything written or broadcasted should not be digested as-is, but scrutinized thoroughly.

4. There are folks who want to stay blissful. Let's hope they're not the majority.

PS: I do think I'm better than anyone else. I was lucky to get a good education at school with highly motivated teachers, and hope to deepen it as long as I live. I realize that getting a good education is a problem in most places of the world, also in Germany. I am more than sure that there are lots of young people over here without a single book in their apartment. Which is sad.

Mr. Ebert: Thank you very much for your reply to my first comment. I wish you all the best, personally.

Ebert: We have a lot of smart people in this country. But the dummies are lapaloozas.

I am not jewish, or christian, but do you think this is what God meant in the Old Testament that corrupt leaders would incur his wrath along with their people?

Why the people? Seems very unfair doesn't it, but nothing done unfairly would be possible without the people's support or lack of vigilance.

Following this biblical standard (now that's tough love!), are we the people also to blame for every shameful move our government and leaders commit?

Being critical with ourselves for a moment, perhaps we are responsible, there's a theme here about lack of accountability running in this country, our politicians and leaders evade it simply because we do as well. It's like saying I don't support the war but I support the troops, dear friends, without the troops there wouldn't be a war. Isn't that the stance Mohammad Ali took that made him so great after all?

Palin has the gall to accuse those behind health-care reform of wishing to establish death panels, and yet the system that she is advocating by making such remarks has no problem with denying those with life-threatening illnesses needing care. By getting behind the boys who shamelessly put their profits before those whose lives they effect, she made clearer than ever before (especially for the developmentally challenged among our voting ranks who supported her with unending zeal) whose interests she really has in mind. And to think she could have been in any real position of power.

Denying procedures to those whose lives depend on them?...kinda sounds like choosing who gets to live or not. Sounds kinda...death panelish. Yeah. Definitely got a hint of some death panel.

It's always about the money...and you know what, I'm not even gonna lie: if she's ever the victim of a wolf attack while out on one of her lame hunting photo-ops, I'm gonna laugh and laugh and laugh. And I hope it's a huge pack; I hope they haven't eaten in days!

Say whatever you will about that, about me. I don't care. A person as truly stupid as that, being that high on the ballot, allows me to say such things.

There simply aren't enough political parties in the United States, and so, all the voices are herded into two opposing camps without any third, forth or fifth voice to bring fresh ideas and hold the most powerful voices accountable. These two parties have their own version of 'wingers'. You have far-left wingnuts and far-right wingnuts. But since the United States seems to be in a continuous election cycle, none of the moderates can argue with the extreme positions in their own party without feeling they are doing damage to the brand. And so, where are the reasonable voices? They are silenced by loyalty to their brands.

We were lucky enough in Canada to have had a clear, unwavering voice in the battle for universal health insurance. Clear unwavering commitment to an idea that could not be ignored or miscast into something that it was not as long as he was around to defend it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oUInTUlAM

Ebert: There has been a noticeable number of Canadians already in this thread praising their national health care system.

Actually, Mr. Ebert, there really are "death panels" in America. They are called The Medical Insurance Companies.

They are the ones who decide if a person should get a kidney (or any vital organ) or not. They also decide if a person should be treated for cancer, leukemia or AIDS. They also determine if a person shouldn't have a cancerous sore removed because that would be considered "a luxury" or "non-essential surgery". They also determine if a person should have their medical insurance cancelled, even if that person faithfully paid all their deductables on time. And they can do it, too. They can drop a human being in an instant all for the sake of saving money. Meanwhile, there are powerful people in our land who are telling us that any other way would be insane, illegal or worse, socialism. And the folks that are telling people this get paid millions, I'm sure, through the medical industry.

You have to wonder about these people who are screaming, cursing, threatening and disrupting these town hall meetings throughout the country. You have to wonder: Are they defending this broken system we are forced to live with? Is this the medical system they really want?

It's very interesting to think that in the court of public opinion, short, succinct phrases will always win out against lengthy reasoning, no matter that these phrases may be baseless. Obama is sometimes criticized for speaking too well, making his arguments too lengthy.

So I ask, what do we want? why do these soundbites drive public opinion? I guess it's easy to say Bush started this with things like "mission accomplished" or "axis of evil," but this behavior seems older than that. I would hate to have the Obama administration sink to using soundbites, but maybe it's required to get the sheep to follow...

Put a camera in someone's face and they will take on a persona that they've learned from television and movies. The passion in their voice and actions, the more quotable their words are, thats the impression that stays the longest. Emotional outbursts douses reason and objectivity. The town hall meetings were probably more civil discussion than shouting matches, but everyone knows emotion sells, makes 3 minute newsclips interesting, and keeps the attention of people conditioned to watch 'reality' television.

Add to that a live 'popularity gauge' aka Obama's approval ratings, some rich lobbyists and pundits instead of journalists, and you have one heck of a show. Ever notice that in many American movies and television shows a popular reason for the hero (or antihero) to break the law is in order to save a sick friend or relative? The movie 'John Q' comes to mind...

Your discussion of the health care debate is intelligent and balanced, and your thoughts on your own experiences made the post quite moving. I have been with several close family members during illness and even as they were dying. I think anyone who has experienced that can see clearly how shallow most of the discussion of health care has been. It's very disheartening. And Sarah Palin has succeeded in lowering the bar even further.

By the way, I have been enjoying your blog tremendously. I'm trying to educate myself about movies and film criticism to support my 15-year-old daughter who is passionate about movies and reading and writing movie reviews. I think you're her favorite critic. She has several of your books, and they seem to be worn to tatters. :-)

Ebert: Looking at your blog, I can see where she gets that.

Yeah, death panel is kinda brilliant. It calls to mind "death camp" which in turn conjures the most unimaginable cruelties.

There are two types of illness, chronic and acute. Chronic is reversible while acute is not. Perpetuating chronic disease, it would appear, is big business. This is why the health care industry has become the well-meaning hand-puppet of the drug/insurance companies. There's also an aspect of personal responsibility here with regards to diet and exercise that nobody will touch with a ten foot pole. Everything is connected. We are all connected to one another. What I do over here has an effect on that guy over there.

My mom (a teacher with full coverage) is on the American health system and had to wait seven months before she could get into seeing a dermatologist to remove a suspicious looking mole. My dad, a retired laborer, is just about ready to start paying $800 a month for five years to get coverage until he can get on medicare. And in a couple of weeks, I'll have no coverage because I'll no longer be considered a dependent by my mother's insurance. I hope I'm not sick, or else I'll never have coverage again the rest of my life.

There seems to be a mentality among the angry mobs (who are not really angry, they just like the attention of being publicly frightened) that "I've got mine" and everyone else can go die for all they care. The truth is, they don't, and no one does because an insurance company arbitrarily decides what is and is not covered. An ambulance ride that was free Tuesday might be $1000 Thursday. I think that's why the idea of "death panels" is so palpable to these people.

To be honest, I was just as afraid as these mobs when I first considered the idea of government touching health care. The fact of the matter is that the money is going to get blown on something anyway, and they can't possibly mess up health care worse than it already is....

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE

I think one thing that people are failing to see is the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does it say we have a right to health care. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's it. (Don't tell me that "life" equates to health care. Health care didn't exist when it was written.) I don't think anyone is arguing over that fact that something needs to be done about escalating costs. I think we all agree it is too expensive. One commenter mentioned tort. This is a big problem if you ask most doctors. We live in a very litigious society. We sue for anything and everything. The people who win the suits are getting rich and the lawyers are getting richer, but when it comes down to it, someone is paying for it. That someone is you and I.

Also, since when is it right for wealthy people to pay the bulk of the taxes? We all want to be rich, yet we demonize those who are. I myself am not rich, and I don't hate people that are. Last time I checked most millionaires are business owners. they employ people like you and I. If the government takes more of their money, they have less to give to their employees.

As far as "death panels," who really knows. What we do know is that some group of people will be in charge of running the plan. What happens when/if there isn't enough money to fund it? What happens? What choices will the administrators of the program have to make when "the buck stops here?" You can not honestly tell me that health care will not end up rationed. We sure don't want to keep borrowing money from China. They already are to the point where they don't want to lend us anymore money.

I guess my main point is that the government should be doing one thing, and one thing only: Upholding the Constitution.

Ebert: Whoops, there go the National Parks.

Believe it or not, health care did exist when the Constitution was written.

Wealthy people do not pay the bulk of the taxes. Many of them pay no taxes at all. Proportionately, they pay a good deal less than their share. Who makes up the difference? You do.

A later comment from Ron points out that you are not quoting the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence.

I am generally conservative, and have voted largely Republican over the 30 years I have had the privelege of voting. However, I am not unthinking and I am of at least reasonable intelligence. I voted for Obama and the health care dialogue is one of the reasons. For me the the matter is really very simple: We are a country, a community, a people, and not a machine or a business or the means to a bottom line. We should conduct ourselves and our nation with good practices and sound decisions, but we must never mistake the numbers for the needs. If we do not care for our own - whether they are rich or poor, black or white, living or dying (and who among us is not both?), Christian or Muslim - then who will? As a community, as a nation, could we ever be forgiven for letting even one soul pass without the chance of equal treatment? How do we collectively accept that the opportunity for basic needs - not the opportunity for a new car or a wide-screen television, but the opportunity for the fulfillment of basic, essential need - is clearly denied too many in our midst? Again, I consider myself conservative in most ways the word is applied to policy, but remain ashamed that we deny our own what they minimally need, that we try to dictate what a lifestyle choice should be, that we try to export a moral compass that loses its magnetic pole within our own borders.
Kevin Coombs

Hi Roger,

Two brilliant pieces from last week's Daily Show. Each is about 5 minutes:

"America is the wealthiest country in the world, yet 50 million people do not have access to Death Panels."

Healther Skelter - Obama Death Panel Debate
http://tinyurl.com/lr28cn

Reform Madness - White Minority
http://tinyurl.com/ly74o4

Omer M

"We are all responsible for everything and everyone in the face of everybody, and I more than the others."
-Dostoyevski
We always exist and experience the world with others (there is no isolated "I"), and have no other purpose but to help and care for everyone. Citing Emmanuel Levinas, the obligation to the Other is asymetrical; it is a debt I can never fully repay. The notion of autonomy perpetauted in American culture is a myth; we are more dependent on each other than we could ever come to realize.

I was just having this discussion on another blog, where the majority of conservatives are screaming "socialism" and the majority of liberals are blaming the conservatives for derailing the Obama health care plan with their outrageous lies and scaremongering.

Something interesting I've noted, however, is that those on the right and those on the left both seem oppose the plan: conservatives because the plan would turn America into a communist nation and strip away everybody's freedoms, and liberals because the plan is, in their eyes, not nearly inclusive enough. As a Canadian, it really makes no difference to me. As someone who cares for his fellow man and believes that everyone is entitled to quality health care, it never fails to bewilder me that America hasn't turned the corner yet.

I also believe there's only so far people can go with the argument that conservative lies (be it in the far-right press or through decades and decades of systematic brainwashing) are responsible. Power resides with the people; it is everyone's responsibility to be informed and to not just swallow whatever they are told, whether it comes from the right or the left. I honestly believe that if the majority of Americans wanted universal health care badly enough, they would cut through all the partisan obfuscation and demand it from their elected representatives; God knows the Democrats will never have a better chance than they do right now to push through legitimate reform.

Most amusing to me though is when I read particular conservative bloggers who think Reagan was the livin' end, and quote him re: America being the great shining beacon that the rest of the world looks up to--- yet the US remains the only developed nation not to take care of all of its people. And these same people turn their noses up at Europe, and rail on about nine month waiting lines in Canadian medical centres. Who exactly are they leading? I've never encountered a fellow Canadian, even a conservative whose political interests live and die with lower taxes, who would sacrifice the universal system. It would mean sheer death to a politician's career if he/she even suggested going back to the dark age, and modeling our system after America's in which insurance companies will do anything to get out of footing the bill.

To answer your question about who really opposes single-payer health care: My guess is, those who have everything they need, and who really don't care about their neighbors.

The tragedy isn't just the rampant ignorance, it's the lack of objective reasoning. All the facts people imbibe are distilled through their reticular activation system to agree with what they already want to believe. Feelings come first, facts come second. So even if you try to inform people about the way reality actually is, you still have the problem of them processing information in such a way that it only reaffirms their existing beliefs and feelings. No matter what figures like Obama or Palin say or do people will only interpret these actions according to what they already believe and feel.

A couple of years ago, I visited an old teacher and told her what I was majoring in. I remember telling her "you know, I was interested in medicine, but then I realized that if I became a doctor, I'd have to get used to the idea of rejecting someone because they're too poor. 'Why hello sir how are you? Now, I would treat you for what is otherwise a benign affliction but since you're too poor, you're just going to have to ride it out. Have a nice day!'"

Seeing the Obama administration retract their proposed Public Option is a great disappointment, and I'm even more infuriated by the power of private insurance companies and of demagogue rhetoric.

In fact, it seems like America is the only developed nation that considers health care as a business. No, despite what dictionaries would otherwise say, apparently America seems to have warped the concept of health care into a mutant derivative of marketing.

This fear of "socialism" is such an archaic fear-mongering technique that I'm beginning to wonder if the "death panel" protestors even know what it is in theory and principle.

"Socialism is bad!!!" Really? Because I always found Marx's theory to be rather interesting, though the practice rather questionable. But that's for another debate. What really matters is what exactly stems their fear and what exactly they are using as examples to justify their fears. To be honest, I think socialized health care in the Netherlands is working out pretty well for them, and they are far from being those dastardly Red Bastards the McCarthy era so zealously painted.

What disgusts me the most is how easily opponents of the Obama administration twist rhetoric into fear mongering iron grips that seem so utterly convincing despite the numerous fallacies Socrates would find appalling.

"Obama wants to kill your grandmother!" Ad hominem fallacy, classic and rather classy I must say.

"Death panel!" Loaded definition, beautifully illogical. Alternatively, I suppose private insurance companies wouldn't reject you for health care in the case you needed it eh?

"Obama is like Hitler!" Godwin's law strikes again.

And then we have our lovely Sarah Palin, who like a bad fart doesn't quite seem to ever disappear from media and political publicity. Oh, how I fondly linger upon her Vice Presidential debate in 2008 when she eloquently said:

"It was Ronald Reagan who said that freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We don’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we’re going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free."

How utterly articulate, especially when her warning was much against electing Obama-Biden into office. Alas, as Rachel Maddow pointed out, Ronald Reagan was referring to MediCare. It's great fun to see how people tend to take quotes out of context these days.

Hi Roger,

I am one of those evil Republicans who listens to Rush Limbaugh. (I am not speaking for the evil Republican Party, or the even more evil Rush Limbaugh; I speak only for myself.) I also pay $500+ a month for health insurance out of post-FICA, and post-tax income, which is not deductible to my wholly owned Subchapter S company. I am writing to pose questions, not to object for the sake of objecting. I seek to shed light, not generate heat.

Republicans have suggested a number of market-based proposals. Why shouldn't we try them?

Why shouldn't Subchapter S corporations be allowed to pay for health insurance premiums of their employees with pre-FICA and pre-tax money, just as other companies do? Or, in the alternative, why shouldn't the Government tax all health care benefits of all employees, with a large tax credit, and subsidy to cover low-income individuals?

At a minimum, why don't we support employees knowing how much their employer is paying for health insurance premiums?

The Republicans passed the prescription medication portion of Medicare, and I understand that this is the one portion of Medicare that is not losing money. And I understand that this portion of Medicare is market-based. Why don't we expand on the portion of Medicare that is market-based, and not the statist portion of government paid health care that so many Americans object to?

Why not expand Health Savings Accounts?

Some states require health insurance that has lots of frills and extras even going as far as hair transplants and the insurance premiums in those states is high; some states allow people to buy a stripped-down major medical policy with no frills and extras with lower insurance premiums. Instead of changing 17% of the economy of this country, why shouldn't Congress simply allow the citizens of every state to buy health insurance regulated by any other state? At a minimum, shouldn't we at least try this limited reform before changing 17% of the economy?

How about abortion? Congress has passed the Hyde Amendment for Medicaid for many years. I understand that the Hyde Amendment is not part of any of the proposals. (For the record, while I am pro-choice, I am much too Libertarian to want to compel people to pay taxes for the Government to pay for abortions.) If government money is being used, shouldn't the Hyde Amendment language be added?

What about undocumented workers/illegal aliens? How much of the proposed programs would be providing health care to individuals who are not legally in this country? Is there majority support among Americans for extending health insurance to undocumented workers/illegal aliens?

All hospitals must already provide emergency room care under a 1986 federal law. Don't we, in fact, have national health care, albeit much less expansive than any of the proposed programs?

History has shown the need for broad agreement before enacting major social changes. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had the support of 69% of all Democratic Senators and 82% of all Republican Senators. (The Senate version was then approved by 63% of Democratic Representatives and 80% of Republican Representatives.) In 1994, former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Moynihan said that the Clinton Health Care Plan would either pass with the support of 70+% of all senators, or it would not pass at all. I've heard that a large proportion of the members of Congress support 85% of the proposed bills. Shouldn't Congress seek agreement of at least a majority of both parties before enacting a comphrensive act?

Gary Robbins

P.S. I have one last request. I am sure that this post will arouse comment. Could people who respond to this post please use their name, instead of hiding behind "Anonymous" unless they cite a compelling reason for their anonymity?

Ebert: Good questions, and I'm sure there will be masny responses.

Let me pick one nit. When Civil Rights passed, most of the Democrats voting against it were from the South. Most of the Republicans voting for it were from the North. Thanks to the GOP's Southern Strategy, the party now has its voting base in the South, and is going out of business in the North.

You had me interested until you used the term "far-right",and the name
of Sarah Palin. I think that until y'all get over these obsessions you
will never get even close to repairing your health care system. Ours is
also in very bad shape. Just ask a few of our nurses or doctors. We can figure this out but I think the divisiveness , embedded in both the
U.S and Canadian politics is hurting us all. Get over it. Until we do I don't know how we could improve healthcare or any other system.Life is too short Mr. Ebert to be bitter. Forgive the 'far-right' and
Mrs.Palin ,because believe me they are not the enemy.

Ebert: Who is the enemy?

As I understand it from news reports a majority of the people yelling in town halls are actually middle class Americans who are fully covered, or at least think they are. Their ignorance stems from another lie stating that Obama's initiative will force everyone, whether they want to or not to be ont he government's plan. For this group its about them losing what they already have for an inferior system.

Of course the plan itself says keep your insurance if you want, this is for everyone else. In a way its a bit narcissistic that they even think the plan is about them in the first place.

Roger, you are a lovely film critic and I've been watching you for so many years you might as well be a part of my family. But this is an issue where you're simply wrong.

If you want to see "death panels", simply use the NY Times site and its search function. You'll find our President has this to say about his proposed health care reform:

"THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."

So we have a panel deciding outside of the "normal political channels" when it's appropriate to stop giving care. What happens when the care is terminated? So is the patient.

Huh. Let's go over this in slow motion: The President wants to see the establishment of a panel that would decide when people should be allowed to die. I would submit that the phrase "death panel" is certainly incendiary, but also verifiably accurate.

You're also just flat wrong when you say "I think I do know where their anger is fed. The drumbeat of far-right commentators fuels it. Their agenda is not health care, but opposition to the Obama administration. It takes the form of demonizing Obama. It uses the tactic of the Big Lie to defame him".

When more than 50% of the people oppose something, it's not just the far right. If it was just a "far right" issue, people wouldn't be showing up to the Tea Parties or the town hall meetings.

Political figures have ascribed discontent over issues to "outside agitators" before, and have usually paid a high price for doing so. You can't get thousands of ordinary citizens out of the house and into the streets unless they're genuinely pissed off.

Speaking for myself, you can't call me a member of the far right, unless there's a special wing of the far right that's pro-gay and pro-choice and pro-drug legalization. If you'd really like to know, instead of theorize, here's what has me hopping mad about this:

1) The speed with which this was attempted strongly suggests that someone is quite literally "pulling a fast one." Despite the infinite assurances on the part of the Democratic leadership that "you can keep your doctor and your plan if you like it", the original House bill outlaws private insurance plans after a certain date.

2) The use of "flag@whitehouse.gov" is particularly egregious, as is the notion that it's now the duty of the citizenry to report "conversations and emails" that argue against the President's proposed legislation.

3) The accusations that I and my friend are "astro turfing" are particularly galling, when busloads of SEIU activists and the President's own private army of activists are being encouraged to get out to these town halls. Viz, the fake doctor at Rep. Lee's conference, viz Arlen Specter saying we aren't real Americans, viz Speaker Pelosi's extraordinary accusations that we're outside waving swastikas around.

I could go on and on, but essentially, where you see a flagrant misuse of language, I see an accurate depiction of an ugly and dishonest power grab. I think the way this proposal has been attempted speaks for itself: corrupt and mean-spirited.

Thank you so much. You've given a clear, concise explanation that - maybe? possibly? - I can share with the Ditto Heads in my life. Not that they'll listen.

What's especially frightening to me is that this is the sort of climate that got Hitler elected in the first place.

I can't help thinking things would be different if those commentators (not to mention our legislators) had to walk in the shoes of the average not-that-wealthy American. For starters, let's make Congresspersons join Social Security. But I digress...

Thank you again, I'm so grateful you're still speaking out.

It's sad how any time the idea of health care reform is brought up in this country in a substantial way - it gets politicized in an unbearably ugly manner that obviates any civil discourse (witness the fierce opposition the Clintons encountered in their first term) & anything that has a faint whiff of "socialism" gets demonized as if someone were suggesting burning the flag. Part of me thinks that Obama made a huge error in not anticipating this ugliness (he should have learned from the Clintons) and pre-empted the opposition with a proactive communication strategy. Perhaps, this is where some of his inexperience and naivete are showing a bit.
It looks like the vitriolic resistance is having some effect since the administration is ready to drop the public option now.

Have you read Robert Reich's blog posting on the issue?: http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/08/public-options-last-stand.html

I know that I certainly don't have the answers on how to fix health care. But I have a good job in corporate America - yet I find that I'm paying more for less coverage every year. I just go to the doctor's for a check up with some shots and maybe blood work. Yet, I end up paying a few hundred dollars out of my pocket since my company set it up so that I have a $1k or more deductible. What gives? Something is clearly broken. I can only imagine what health care is like for those with lower paying jobs.

On the other side of the issue, I have friends from Europe and Canada who complain about their systems as well. So there may be valid criticisms to make (just not these idiotic lies about killing grandma with death panels). No health care system is perfect - but surely we can explore other options.

The ant analogy is funny since when a single ant is injured to the slightest, the rest of its brethren dismantle it and feed it to the larvae. You might be on to something.

I don't know what happens in other country's Health Care systems, they may work well for them, but we already have an awful example of Government-Run Healthcare here in the US, Indian Health Services. Truely Pitiful!

Ebert: The ant analogy?

The government woudn't run the health care system. It would make insurance more affordable.

I thought Obama handled this pretty well by flat out calling it "dishonest."

It's shocking to me that millions of people believe Sarah Palin, and the "republican commentators." It implies that they truly think Obama is evil.

Bush was just about the worst president I could imagine having, and I'd never call him evil. I think he was a fool in nearly every regard, but not evil.

And Obama barely has his foot in door.

It's scary to think what they'll have people saying about him in 4 years.

Hi,

Maybe I misunderstood when I read, "One result has been that our national life expectancy ranks 42nd among all developed nations. We spend more on medical care that any other nation, and get less than 41 of them. These figures are pretty clear."

Are you linking the U.S. healthcare system with our life expectancy? If so, what about our no. 1 ranking for obesity playing a part in the high mortality rate? Sorry if I misinterpreted.

http://topnews.us/content/24445-obesity-can-shorten-lifespan

Can the tax payers afford "universal healthcare" in this day and age? The U.S. military has "socialized medicine" for a long time. For primary care (flu shots, etc.) it works well. For serious illnesses, the system is ponderous at best. The tenacity of a free market is unmatched and irresistible. If we have socialized medicine, then a highly developed 2 tier system will ramp up (more government = more black market). Seriously ill people go outside the system for quality care, whether you call it "universal" or "socialized." Cigarettes are becoming a black market item, thanks to the moral taxes being piled on. Anyway, it is hard to ignore the role of obesity as a far more significant player than our healthcare system, as we have much more obesity in the U.S. population.

Thank you for your terrific articles and sorry if I misinterpreted what you wrote.

Ebert: An excellent point. Yet most medical schools don't even offer a full day of training on nutrition.

My mother was denied a biopsy by her HMO. In order to get a biopsy, we had to raise money for an entire year in order to see a specialist in Houston. During that time, her supposedly remissive cancer spread through her lymph nodes to her brain, mouth, and liver. She died shortly after we got the positive result back from the specialist.

My mother was a District Attorney for the state of Texas, but her supposedly good insurance decided a test for cancer would be too expensive. How's that for a death panel; a death panel of one that thinks cancer is bronchitis. That is under the current system.

Those mindless hordes (not that they don't have a mind, but that they are not using them) who choke these town hall meetings with ignorance are doing a disservice to us all. Obama's plan is not perfect, and we do need REAL debate on its merits. For proponents and opponents of the public option alike, it is important that this bill, which will affect us all, be debated based on the facts and not on some bizarre fantasy that supposedly sprung fully formed out of Sarah Palin's head like Pallas Athena.

What is lost in this "death panel" nonsense is that insurance companies are still going to be around, and they will still be an option for every american. But if the government is providing a more cost effective option, then maybe they will have to react. Maybe they won't be so quick to deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions. (I once attempted to buy private health insurance and was turned down, not for health problems but because my BMI was unacceptable. I could afford insurance and had no conditions, but was still denied. Only with a different employer could I finally become insured.)

My point is this, the Obama plan provides no negatives, that's why Palin and co. have to make outlandish stuff up. It's hard work convincing people to act against their best interest...

Roger this is a reasonable blog but you seem to believe the people at the town hall meetings are completely, or even mostly, genuinely outraged 'regular citizens'. They're not. They're a touring company, bought and paid for and (often) with a financial stake in the debate. They're often not even constituents of the people they're shouting down.

Ebert: Can you document that?

As a Canadian living in the US. I'm just glad that if I am ever hit with a debilitating disease, I can move back to my homeland. I just wish everyone in America would have the same option.

Two other comments that jump out at me:

1) Medicare has a known shelf life. It's running out of money. So we're going to do more of the same? Except with younger people? There's no way to make that work unless you rule out private insurance.

2) You're now getting the same health care as our legislators. That's marvelous. You do know that our legislators are writing this bill in such a way that they can exempt themselves from the new public option, yes?

The other day I walked into a gas station in a small Indiana town. This is one of those one stop shops that has groceries too, so you don't have to head to the city if you don't want to. I was just passing through and stopped at this place because they were offering Midgrade gas at economy prices.

On the checkout there was a piece of paper complaining about the increase in cigarette taxes being used for health care. Among the complaints (before it got around to calling Obama a socialist) was the fact that it gave 10 million kids free health care.

It was worded like that was a bad thing.

I can understand--I don't agree--but I can understand not wanting to give adults free health care. But, Jesus, complaining about free health care to kids? Isn't the social commandment that we live by leave our children better off that we were?

I have so missed hearing your voice in recent years and of the years you and Gene were together on TV that I so enjoyed watching. At we least we have the gift of your words in printed and electronic form.

America is seemingly so ruled by fear, perhaps it is the social Darwinism that pervades your society. The notion that the competition to get ahead economically is so intense that one would do almost anything to protect what you have from the government and others less fortunate.

I found this interesting article about fearfulness in Japanese society and how it might be genetic.

http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=12034

Roger, your bias is showing. Sure, we all have our own biases, but you are using yours in an unfair way, to frame the terms of the debate.

You wrote that the term 'death panels' "fuels the anger that has essentially shut down 'town hall' meetings intended for the discussion of the issues."

Well, no, on two counts. First, people who oppose or question Obama's plans for healthcare reform are motivated by a wide range of legitimate concerns, some of which include higher taxes, restrictions on the freedom to choose their own doctors, being forced to accept a lower-quality level of healthcare, and having the IRS (which will slap a penalty tax on people who don't buy "approved" health insurance) nose its way into a heretofore private area of the lives of American citizens.

Second, please don't insult your readers by parroting the Orwellian lie that these town hall meetings were intended for a "discussion of the issues." The town hall meetings were intended to create merely the pleasant illusion of public participation, while our betters in Washington give the rest of us our marching orders.

However, the numerous citizens who have spoken out at town halls in opposition to Obama's plan show that a real discussion -- one in which broad public acceptance of Obama's plan is not a foregone conclusion -- is necessary. The horrified reactions of Democratic congressmen to this inconvenient truth speak volumes about their opinion of public participation in the legislative process.

Ebert: Some Republicans have been horrified, too.

An opinion is not a bias. Not mine, not yours.

"The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available." --Winston Churchill, explaining his views on medicine and society to the members of the Royal College of Physicians in London, in March, 1944, quoted by Joe Conason in "Winston Churchill was a Bolshevik"; "Guess who helped launch socialized healthcare in the U.K.? The ultimate conservative icon -- and he was proud of it." (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/08/14/healthcare)

How is it, for those facing life threatening health problems who have no health insurance, that the lack of health insurance in a country that does not guarantee health care does not constitute the existence of de facto death panels?

Now, if we could get horror films to be as scary as all this nonsense about death panels and the horrors of socialized medicine, well, I'd be happy. Psycho killers are getting so commonplace. But of course no one would believe such a storyline in a movie, would they? It's too far-fetched. Or palineseque, perhaps, to be believable.

Glad you are still with us. Your blog is a wonderful result of you still being here. Loved Ponyo, by the way. You were right.

It's infuriating how due democratic process can be twisted into such a debacle, and by a lie no less. Reading your post, I am forced to conclude that the driving force behind all this is not justified opposition to Obama's health care plan, but mindless opposition to Obama himself. This is not how a democracy is supposed to function. One does not simply toss around words like "death panel" to cause chaos and confusion - it isn't opposition, whether to Obama's health care plan or to Obama himself, but sabotage, all too intentional sabotage of the democratic process.

Obviously, I am clinging to an ideal. My youth betrays itself. Still, lowering oneself to such tactics. This is the lowest of the low. I am quite honestly disgusted.

What caused this? I don't know. Insurance companies, I suppose, all those saber-wielding right wing people who so oppose Obama, and probably for no more a reason than his being who he is.

I can see how one would demonize Obama on grounds of his supposed socialist tendencies. Communism is just a short step away after all, and after the Cold War it's predictable that there be a certain amount of paranoia. However, it seems to me that this is no more than simple antagonism, rabble rousing, and for its own sake.

Knowing what Obama's plan consists of, I simply do not understand how anyone, especially blue collar workers, could oppose it. I don't want to be rude, but this seems to be the work of either stupidity, ignorance or hate. Probably all three to a certain extent.

I really don't know. It's the only thing that comes to mind. I can't fathom any other force, short of divine intervention, that could twist and warp a good thing into such a debacle.

Of course, the rabble-rousers know what they're doing and why, but I can't help but blame the rabble as much as the manipulators.

The phrase "a woman's right to choose" leaves out the death of a human being in the process of formation. Liberals are upset about the use of the phrase "death panels." But the House bill does mention "end of life counseling," and anytime Democrats bring up the subject of death, their passion for abortion naturally comes to mind. Politics is a rough sport.

Having been the beneficiary of national health insurance in Japan, it astonishes me that we wouldn't want some form of public health insurance in this country.

Here's my story: the company I worked for in Japan offered its own medical care, but it only covered accidents, surgeries, and other such items, and while it would completely reimburse such procedures, you had to pay for them out of your own pocket first. So, when I went to the dentist and he discovered a cavity (and keep in mind, dental care is more expensive in Japan than in America), he suggested that I get National Health Insurance to cover it, since my company's health insurance would not.

Well, I ended up getting National Health Insurance with some help from one of my Japanese staff members, and I believe it cost me about $500 a year, which is roughly $40-$45 per month. I would pay 30% of the cost for procedures; the government would cover the rest. Plus, it not only covered medical and dental procedures, but eye care, as well (I wear contacts lenses/glasses). And, it was cheaper than my company's health insurance plan.

I imagine the procedure that Obama wants would be similar. If you don't like your health insurance provider, you have a public option. If you like your health insurance provider, you can keep it. Hey, it works in Japan, where companies have the option of enrolling their employees in National Health Insurance or in a private insurer. And if employees have a private insurer, but wish to be enrolled in National Health Insurance, instead, they can do so. The only stipulation in Japan is that all workers must have medical insurance.

And yes, the waits could be a little long, but not much longer than they are in a crowded doctor's office in the U.S. I should also mention that, whenever I went to see a doctor in Japan, I never had an appointment, so I didn't consider the half-hour or hour-long wait to be that bad.

I used to support the concept of single payer, I no longer do, here's why. I'm the widow of a husband who didn't survive cancer. My husband Steve was in need of an organ transplant. He was considered to be the healthiest patient on the transplant waiting list, he took very good care of himself, was a wonderful husband, loving father. He was a hard worker, and had health insurance through his job. He lost his job, and his health insurance as a result. It took us 2 years, without an attorney, fighting to get him on medicare, so he could once again see his specialist in RI and the one in Boston at the transplant clinic. When he was approved, we thought our problems were over. When you rely on medicare, and can't afford an expensive supplemental insurance, your only chance of seeing a specialist is at the public hospitals. Unfortunately, when I called ours, RI Hospital, I was informed that due to the increased numbers of medicaid patients, they'd had to cut somewhere, and had decided to cut medicare patients, who lacked the right sort of supplemental insurance (expensive). They knew that poor elderly, and disabled citizens who relied on medicare, also lacked the money they'd need to hire an attorney to fight to defend their rights against such discrimination. We lost our little home (we were essentially lower middle class, had purchased our home through a low income housing program in the state), we barely had enough to keep utilities on and food on the table, it was a struggle to pay for his medications we were denied any other help, and my husband was denied medicaid as a supplemental to his medicare.

I called one of my senators, Jack Reed, expecting him to help, but I was denied help, repeatedly, all the way up from staffer, legislative assistant, to the health care director who worked for Reed, they insisted that medicare is "not a federal matter", ignoring the fact that medicare is a federal program, it's not a state program. My husband went years without access to the doctors, the much needed tests to monitor the progression of his condition.

The day after our daughter graduated from state college, my husband was admitted to the hospital when the emergency room doctors couldn't continue to ignore his condition. He had 10 liters of fluid in his abdomen, and it was leaking through his skin. They removed half the fluid, kept him in for a few days to ensure he was stabilized, and after testing the fluid, they found a lymphoma, in stage 4. My husband died 3 weeks after his diagnosis, treated worse than an animal would be treated. The plug wasn't pulled on my husband, under the way the medicare program, along with our other welfare and social programs have been exploited as a subsidy for the cheap foreign labor fat cat political contributors demand, and our corrupt democrat politicians give them, by refusing to enforce the laws, my husband was denied the ability to get plugged into health care under a state run system. That is what rationing is all about, and you can laugh over the term "death panels" all you like. I've read Ezekiel Emanuel's articles, where he infers that physicians should abandon the Hippocratic oath, and consider that some Americans are more equal than others, that we should be evaluated based on how much merit we are worth.. in very cold, bloodthirsty terms. Roger Ebert ought to take a walk out of the ivory tower and into the real world. We have tent cities across the US, filled with teachers, nurses, construction workers, tech workers, engineers, factory workers, firefighters, who've been discriminated against and displaced because they are American citizens, and those citizens happen to be black, brown as well as white.

I am 50 years old, and up until last Fall, I had been a liberal democrat my entire life (that is no exaggeration, I come from a long line of liberal dems). I had been struggling over how little faith I had in my party since a bit before 2004, when I started noticing the utter corruption of members of congress, state and local democrat officials (I live in what has, up 'til now been considered a very blue state, Rhode Island). Democrat elected officials who I'd voted for and previously respected were showing themselves to be no different than the neo-cons I despised. I'll never vote for a democrat again, and neither will my daughter, and other family and friends. Virtually every democrat I know, has re-affiliated to independent, or are planning to.

Ebert: This comment is confusing to me. Why has your husband's tragic treatment turned you against affordable health care? How have Democrats contributed to the way he was treated?

This blog perfectly explains the far right's skill for combating an issue by widdling it down to a meme that is designed to scare people with falsities and propaganda and then have the issue closed from further discussion. The fact that it works so well is frightening. It's an insult to the intelligence, as if to say having an open mind considering both sides is wrong. Instead of a well conceived and eloquent argument, it's only two words carried from one blowhard pundit or politician to the next and then the book is closed.

I'm a Canadian and I feel very lucky to have universal health care. What angers me is the American far right's inexplicable and downright stupid condemnation of Canadian health care, which they claim is basically some kind of cold communist system in which the patient can't choose who their family doctor is (false) and has to wait forever for major operations and treatments (not true in every case). They also seem ignorant about the fact that in Canada private care is an option, or they just don't mention it because it could hurt their argument.

I've seen pundits on CNN and Fox try to explain how horrible and overly complicated it would be to have a government run health care system by drawing up these complex charts drawn with magic markers that they hilariously have trouble explaining. I noticed something very telling in their argument. Instead of using the word "patient" they used the word "consumer" which to me explains the mindset of the far right when it comes to health care. No one's a patient, just a consumer. Because at the end of the day, American health care is a billion dollar business open only to those who can afford it. It's not a system. A system is something that actually works for everybody. It's a service that seems to be a privilege and not a right.

Do I think America will ever have universal health care? I hope so, but it will be a major political battle that could take years (or decades) until the U.S. can reach that point. I certainly have my doubts since the biggest barrier in front of universal care is the wall of money that represents how profitable U.S. health care is without making treatment available to each and every citizen. Hey, there's another meme, "wall of money"! I think I just coined it.

All this universal health care talk, and outrage reminded me of something that Stephen Colbert had said on his show. He had a guest on from India, it was during their elections, and the guest had made a comment about how the Indian people don't vote against their interests, and Colbert then responded, "we're good at doing that here." I don't see how anyone woulnd't want this, but i've had a few debates with friends and family members who are in certain circumstances where this healthcare would help them, but they somehow still think its all about socialism. I even had one person tell me that if there was universal healthcare what motivation would the doctors have in getting to their patients in a timely and orderly fashion, and how Canadians have to wait forever, and how she knew, because she knows a couple people from Canada. Where are their facts? A lot of what i've been hearing from people about their side of the issue is that, "I know this, because I know this."

Ebert: "Socialism" has become a trigger word in the country, and no longer desribes anything.

First of, I must admit that I had to shed a few tears when reading about your ordeal with cancer treatment. It is very brave of you to share this with the world.

What I would like to know is why a health care system resembling one in Canada or Europe is an argument against implementing that system in the U.S. I hear this argument a lot at FOX news!

I live in the Netherlands and one of the important reasons I am glad that I live here is that we have a decent health care system for everyone, whereas in the U.S. I have to be sure that I'm successful before I am guaranteed good health care. Using a U.S.-inspired health care system in the Netherlands would be a horror scenario for me!

Ebert: So far, all the commenters here from overseas approve of their health care systems.

I find it perplexing that a shared communal activity such as "taking care of the sick" has become branded as "socialist" or "communistic."

More than that, I find it infuriating that anybody who calls themself a Christian would be opposed to society working together to accomplish this. Taking care of the sick, after all, is one of the most basic works of charity, springing directly from a direct commandment from the founder of the religion.

You people are so naive!!
First of all,socialized medicine in Canada is NOT working and the government is considering returning to private care!We have been warned about the consequences of socialized medicine by Canadians and people from the UK!
The health care bill is essentially about power and control...very little about health.Do you people want a government bureaucrat making decisions about your life?Do you want the government to have direct access to your finances and bank accounts?Do you want you medical records on the internet?
The death/euthanasia aspect of the bill is the result of the preachings of the president's "Healthcare Advisor",Dr.Ezekiel Emanuel.Just google him and learn the radical policies he advocates.He would like MD's to "junk"the Hippocratic oath.He would withold care from disabled infants/chidren and adults....because these individuals cannot contribute to society.So death could result from loss of care,but Emanuel assures that disallowing treatment would save trillions!That kind of thinking went into the formulation of this horrific socialist bill that would transform this country into AmeriKa!

Ebert: Not a single Canadian in this thread agrees with you, and there are a fair number of them. Search the thread using "Canadian."

Let me start off by agreeing with Roger, for once. Dreyer was an amazing director. "Vampyr" is incredible (I got to see it on a large screen with a pianist providing accompaniment) and "Day of Wrath" is astonishing (it's a slow build, though, so if you have a light attention span, stay away). I look forward to seeing "Ordet".

Roger, you write:

"Would it replace private health insurance? Not at all. It would provide an option."

Okay, but in 2003, Obama declared himself a proponent of single payer universal health care. He tells the crowd: "But, as all of you know, we may not get there immediately."

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/

So, was he lying then, is he lying now, or did his views "evolve" like the Constitution? I don't know. He's a politician and a lawyer, after all. The point is, people who don't want single-payer are well within their rights to consider this current plan a stepping-stone to single payer.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/31/barney-frank-public-option-is-best-way-to-single-payer/

It looks like Obama's sloppy wording in an interview may have given grist to his opponents:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/08/12/will-you-won-t-you-be-on-my-death-panel.aspx

If the left wants to reassure seniors that death panels are a fantasy, maybe the NYTimes shouldn't give notorious death-for-humans-not-for-animals advocate Peter Singer five (!) pages in which he argues for rationing health care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html

Singer believes that “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee”, that severely disabled children should be aborted, and that "a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others." Not surprisingly, he is also a supporter of euthanasia.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff091399.asp

Of course, Singer publicly voices support only for voluntary euthanasia. But when it comes to rationing health care, and “The Good of the State”, involuntary euthanasia becomes much more appealing.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000390

Singer was well-respected enough by Cass Sunstein to be given a chapter in a book edited by Sunstein.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/AmericanPolitics/ScienceTechnologyEnvironmentalPo/?view=usa&ci=9780195305104

Sunstein has argued in favor of reducing benefits for senior citizens and transferring the benefits to children.

"In undertaking cost-benefit analysis, the government has monetized risks of death through the idea of “value of a statistical life” (VSL), currently assessed at about $6.1 million. Many analysts, however, have suggested that the government should rely instead on the “value of a statistical life year” (VSLY), in a way that would likely result in significantly lower benefits calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children. I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces
more welfare than one that saves old people."

http://www.reg-markets.org/publications/abstract.php?pid=350

Cass Sunstein was appointed as the head of the OIRA by President Obama.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/04/another_chicagoan_cass_sunstei.html

For those of us who believe the government is the problem more than the cure, we'll take whatever phrase that stops the government in its tracks. The liberal side of the healthcare debate focuses on emotion - we have to collectively care about the uninsured who can't afford it, and the government is the only way to provide it "for free". Similarly, it appears that emotional arguments against the plan also fare the best. The other day on MSNBC - on Hardball, though with a guest host, a woman from a town hall meeting was asked if she wanted to eliminate other socialist programs such as medicare, welfare, and social security (though I disagree that social security is socialist - we get back what we put in - including the wealthy). She didn't answer because this was the emotional trap that says if you're against the government helping someone you must be evil. If a single pay health care system makes it into place it will be added to the list of untouchable programs, and all the years leading up to 2009 when a nationalized health care system didn't exist will become a "dark age", and will somehow become the system that no "good" citizen would ever want to return to. This is why people who believe the government is the problem and not the solution will do so much to prevent it. And it is also why some politicians will deceive to make it happen. Because once it happens, it seems there's never any going back.

If you lack insurance coverage, are you opposed to the public option? If your premiums have increased so much that you can't afford them, do you oppose it? If you have a "preexisting condition" that disqualifies you from insurance, do you oppose it? If it would provide you with equivalent insurance at a lower cost, do you oppose it?

That is something many on the left never seem able to grasp -- many of us form political opinions based on what we think is right, what we see as the proper role of government, not simply what will benefit us the most financially in the short term.

Ebert: If people can't get insurance coverage, do you think that is right? If your premiums have increased so much that you can't afford them, do you think that is right? If you have a "preexisting condition" that disqualifies you from insurance, do you think that is right? If it would provide you with equivalent insurance at a lower cost, do you think that is wrong?

another example of a meme was when dubya was running against senator mccain for the republican nomination. while dubya was campaigning in the southwest, karl rove began a campaign of what came to be known as "push polling," when people call as if they're taking a poll, but they're really pushing an agenda. rove had his army calling senior citizens to ask the question, "would you vote for john mccain if you knew that he had an illegitimate black child?" there was no such child, but the suggestion was enough to create a permanent rift between mccain and dubya.

if we have a national healthcare system, it will cost me a few extra bucks from my paycheck, and i'm okay with that because the benefits in the long run will help everyone. it won't matter to my family directly because we're covered by my employer. however, my two school-age children will be less likely to catch something from their classmates, thus saving me a $20 co-pay and taking a day off to bring them to the pediatrician. if other kids are covered and getting treatment, they'll be in school more often, get more work done, and hopefully will get better grades and learn more in school.

a relative of mine is a war veteran and part of the medicare system. he's bought the propaganda that says he'll now have to wait two extra weeks to see a doctor because every welfare mother and her nine children will clog up all the appointments that he's accustomed to having almost within a day's notice. he's also complained that he had to work most of his life and even risk his life in order to get his medical privileges. he's not wrong. however, he's not seeing the big picture.

in order to find out why there's such outcry against a national health system, we'll have to determine who would suffer financially from a national system. let's pretend it's the health insurance industry that would suffer. they would likely start lobbying the g.o.p. then they'd catch the ear of the conservative talk show bullies. then o'reillimbahannity would spout the propanganda to the seniors with medicare and fixed incomes, scaring them to believe they're going to be the big losers in a national system. then those people would likely show up at townhall meetings and follow the script that calls for shouting down the democrats scheduled to speak and answer questions.

but i'm just speculating. it's not as if those things are actually happening. right?

Wow, a shocker. Roger Ebert, a rich leftist who will be able to afford to operate outside of any health care system imposed on the rest of America, supports the left-wing concept supposedly behind a bill that is shoddy and ridden with pork and idiotic legislation, and does so blindly based on ideology. And he's called a 'reasonable voice'.

You can be for or against government-run health care. That's a completely separate issue from this bill Obama is pitching, and which he tried to ram through before anyone read it (indeed, before it was even completely written). They are not one and the same. Only an ideologue or an Obamaphile would blindly support the legislation on principle.

As to the 'any civilized society takes care of its citizens' canard: we do take care of our citizens, via the free market. It provides a better standard of health care to more people than many countries that offer socialized medicine.

Everyone wants to pretend that if the government runs health care, all the problems go away. That's nonsensical and readily evident if you look around the world. Every nation with socialized medicine has problems equal to or greater than the problems we have in America, and our problems would lessen if the government stopped interfering with health care.

Ebert: I am not a rich leftist but a liberal who has worked for a paycheck since the age of 14 and is comfortably well-off. I could not have afforded to pay the medical bills I have incurred. You have no idea.

I'm for widespread access to health care, I'm socially liberal (though politically disgusted at my fly-and-buy liberal colleagues who consider the accumulation of excessive wealth to be their birth-right) and I voted for Obama, but I don't buy into the president's plan. And not because it involves death panels.

Who likely fed Sharah Beauty Queen that line? Probably the very health firms who can't take a stand on it one way or the other in public, for the risk of alienating allies on both sides. Why would they feed the anti-"universal"-care front? Because feeding extremes on the other side is a standard tool of propaganda. Marginalize the opposition.

Why would health firms want universal care and I, an uberliberal, oppose it? For one, because the industrial procedures grouped together as "health care" have little to do with health or with care. They are primarily repair-for-profit schemes, and most of the damage they repair was caused by products their business partners sell -- undigestable fats and sugars that cause chronic inflammation, leading to heart disease, diabetes, cancer and strokes. They repair damage caused by mechanical accidents that could have been avoided with careful machine design (i.e. -- by not selling 100mph machines as toys to prop up the ego)

The other reason is that it's not a universal access to care program. It's a mandatory insurance program. It provides slave-keepers another way to incarcerate parents -- don't buy insurance, go to jail.

It will no longer be necessary for families to be torn apart by social pressures to push one or the other parent under the watchful eye of the criminal (in)justice system. Now, any low-income family that lacks cash for insurance, or that has not developed the extensive administrative habits required to participate in public-assistance programs is a target for law enforcement.

Want universal health care? Let's start with land reform, so we can grow healthy food without depending on foreign oil -- with pollutes our air then fouls our lungs, and calls our children off to war, from which they return with lifelong healthcare needs. Then let's abolish the medical monopoly and make health information widely available. One should not need to go to an advanced medical school to get access to medical information. All health information can be published electronically, and people can make informed choices about preventive care and about treatment of maladies.

Death panels? Hospital administrators and insurance actuaries have for years made life-or-death decisions about who gets care and who doesn't. Nationalizing those death panels to make them a part of a national insurance scheme has nothing to do with health or with care. It has to do with authority, wielded by social groups who lack a rural tradition and who largely consider rural culture less than human. It's time they step aside and let the world heal.

Socialism is NOT the same as any of the "socialist" governments that have been realized in the past. Those have failed, just like experiments. All of them.

A system of government and an economic system, tho inextricably linked (see our representative democracy's dying due to capitalism), are not the same thing. When we refer to these failed nations as Communist or socialist (an economic system), we always refer to ourselves in contrast as democratic (a system of government). Which is unfair - they didn't fail because they were socialist, but because they were authoritarian. Similarly we haven't failed because we're a democracy, but because we're capitalist.

The whole sequence of events with Sarah Palin has been so strange. She resigns with a convoluted and confused speech, disappears... somewhere... and then comes out with a perfect half-a-slogan. Perhaps she's smarter than we think.... perhaps she's so vastly intelligent that she's controlled the country's political events from her Alaskan refuge and feigned incompetence all along. Maybe we've got an American Napoleon on our hands.

Roger, I think I speak for many of your fans when I say...

THANK YOU CHAZ AND YOUR SUPERWOMAN SENSES!

I've been following you for about three years now. I can't imagine not having read what you've written in that time... I clinged to your "Synecdoche" review all year when it was released and none of my friends liked it. Now I've 'met' (online) many more people who love the movie for similar reasons as myself... But having just one great mind see what I liked about it - OK, so there was Michael Phillips, Manohla Dargis, and a few others - was comforting in the time between... And there's been so many must-read blogs you've written in the last couples years. I agree with you when you observe that, post-speaking-ability, your writing has become better than ever. I also think, as a 20 year old, it's helped a lot of young people... become, dare I say, better - more thoughtful, more caring, less hasty to judge - people as we go forward...

I hear Sarah Palin's rec room is done entirely in knotty pine death paneling.

I am not blind to the problem of health care cost. And I have observed that the usual supply/demand influences on prices in many cases do not work. It is as if there are enough wealthy people in the country to keep their own little economy going without regard to what the rest of us can afford. Just try to buy a new car or a new house (a couple years ago) and most of us are left wondering "how can this be?". But there are reasons for it. With the housing, anyone could afford a house because of FHA loans, and if anyone could get approved there was nothing to keep the prices from rising and rising. We were all getting approved for a home but could barely afford the payments, but it seemed the thing to do because even expensive homes were often in the worst part of town. With health care the costs also seem ridiculously high. But with insurance rates never reflecting the actual expense, with corporations and governments paying costs regardless of price due to prior contract obligations, and with the government requiring service to those who can't afford to pay (at least at many hospitals), there are many influences keeping the costs high. Add to that legal costs, drug company advertisements, research costs for lifestyle drugs, and on and on.

With all of these influences keeping costs skyrocketing, it seems there are a lot of things the government could work on to try to reduce costs within the current system before trying to trash it. I think a majority of the American people would accept such attempts at change, because they know there's a problem. There just needs to be solutions that more people can trust.

To Michael:

No, the process would be far more couched in deniability and any one individual decision-maker would be protected by layer upon layer of bureaucracy. Some career public servant in your state capital reviews claims on their computer screen, from 9 to 5 every day, selecting either the "Accept" or "Deny" button on every one. Don't be shocked if quite a few infirmed patients feel the negative effect of that computer mouse straying a bit too far to the right before the click.

How is this any different from a clerk at a HMO clicking the DENY button by default as a matter of policy?

The life end consultations are on page 425 of the bill.

The real question about the UHC is liberty and for the people themselves to control their own liberties in choice such as health care. The reason why prices are so high are because of government regulations and the government getting into it in the late sixties. HMOs helped raise the costs and the lobbies by the pharmaceuticals for the government are in part with that. The health care bill is about big pharma in bed with the government where they hate competition allowing for more monopolistic atmosphere in public health. In a true free market people will have affordable health care. It is through a doctor/patient relationship through competition. Without government regulations such as not buy health insurance across state lines and not buying medications from other nations ex. Canada then the companies themselves cannot exist without the consumer. They are in the climate of government with their 'full wallet' to bring the money. That's why prices are rising because they can charge more because they know that there is no end to the payments. If people were in control of their own health care they have more options being in control of the market rather than the companies themselves. If they don't like their insurance company they can switch to another. Not everyone wants the same health care. Everyone has their own preferences. That is why competition is successful because the company are dependent on the consumer. If they are screwing up the consumer chooses to leave them. Competition always makes the companies better, run more efficient, lower costs to consumer preferences, and bring the best services. Its proven with other types of insurance such as car, life, and property insurance. Why doesn't the government go into those. There is no right to health care. Health care is not a right. If it was then it would be mentioned in the constitution. The purpose of government is to protect our natural rights/liberties that are given to us as humans. It is not to be the welfare state. In addition meidcare/medicad are going bankrupt, Massachusetts with their health care plan are going for broke where they are beginning rationing care. In England there is rationed care due to government not wanting to pay for costs (with them as the root cause for it).

The root of all evil is with governments and that if governments are not in check them they become tyrannical. Health care is one aspect because it brings forth the precedent for more control over our lives. The government, through executive order as recently, can declare forced inoculations for the swine flu vaccinations with evidence proving that the vaccines are far more dangerous and damaging than people believe.

Through a free market the power of the economy is placed onto the consumer and the companies rely on the consumers for survival. With government intervention its corporatism robbing the tax payers for the benefit of the few.

My father is a doctor, and he told me that the government is planning on reducing the payments that doctors receive for treating patients under Medicare. So he has to work harder. He had planned to retire this past year and move to my town to be closer to his new granddaughter, but the depressed real estate market has made it almost impossible to sell his home.

My father is an intelligent man and does his best to keep up with current events. I asked him what he thought of the "single payer" system that Congress refuses to even listen to (because their financial brokers are all insurance companies) and he didn't know anything about it. That's how far that particular suppression campaign has worked.

I could send him links to sites like Truthout.org that have plenty of editorials on the subject, but he would probably reject them because they tend to be a bit more left, and he's a bit right of center. He's not a "Ditto-head," but he has the Republican mindset.

The campaign against President Obama's policies appears to be orchestrated on several fronts:

• The insurance companies that will lose billions of dollars if the single payer option were to become law


• The far-right-wing media (Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.) who have taken up the mantle of the Republican Party


• The "birthers" and other conspiracy theorists who are determined to have Obama removed from office, because "something must be done" about this President who has an Islamic name, is black, and is a Democrat


• The "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower famously warned us about; they stand to lose a lot of money if we aren't sending troops to war

I was a life-long Republican myself. Most military men are, and I served in the Army in my youth. But I lost faith in the Republican party when I saw the excesses that the Bush Administration went to after 9/11, especially the unwarranted invasion of Iraq. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a bully. But it wasn't our place to get him out of power. And we have spent billions in treasure and world-wide goodwill to do so. When we invaded Iraq, I joined the ABB (Anybody but Bush) crowd.

What makes me angriest about the Second Gulf War is the shoddy treatment our troops are getting. Suicides are up among our troops; there are plenty of stories about how they are getting the shaft when it comes to proper medical treatment, pay or housing. Somewhat ironically, if the plan were to come to pass, troops should be able to get treatment outside of the VA establishment that they can't get now.

I'm lucky; I have a good job and decent insurance. But I work in the newspaper industry; layoffs are in the offing. And there are plenty of stories about how people lost everything because of a catastrophic medical event. Who's to say that can't happen to me or my family?

I find it outrageous that a plan to help me should I have need of it is being shouted down by people who are unknowing and unwitting accomplices of the establishment who have the most to lose if it were to come to pass. If these people really knew the truth and chose to accept it, they would be screaming for their Congressmen and Senators' heads, not the President's.

I just finished watching "Watchmen" on BD the other night, and a line from the film struck me: "'Free' is just another word for 'socialist.'" It was uttered by a business magnate who stood to lose a lot of money if the Veidt character continued with his plan for free energy.

It's a moral outrage that we don't educate people better in what words really mean. Of course, if we did, then we would have a lot more politer discourse in this country.

Or perhaps, all-out war.

Ever since my mothers multiple battles with cancer a few years back, I have tried to stay more informed with our health care system and debates concerning it.
When diagnosed with severe breast cancer she was 60 years old and a high school janitor for 25 years and a well known beloved member of the community. She immediately received surgery and the needed treatment. Of course, the medical bills were out of this world and being a single mother of 2 in a lower/middle class family, it was incredibly difficult to make ends meet.
So she opted to receive her chemotherapy and continue to work full time. Of course some days were too excruciating for her and some fellow employees would donate their paid sick time to her out of kindness and compassion. However, not a fan of "sitting back and accepting charity", she continued on with work.
A year went by and just when things were looking up, cancer returned and she had to begin anew. Continuing to work through all the painful treatments again just to barely make ends meet.
It's been about 4 years now and she's still hard at work, finally cancer free, but still horribly in debt.
It really is a vicious circle.

I personally have not had insurance since I was 17. Many people would say (and have said) that it's because of a lifestyle I have chosen (years and years of being a musician in garage/punk/rock bands, constantly touring,not being in one place long enough to hold down a full time 9-5 job where I could "earn" the right for health care). And they may be right. At least I've had a full life so far.
But I could make you a list of health problems I have at this point that will probably go without care until I have no choice but to settle down or become violently ill. And given the recent concerned lectures I've received from my fiance, it may be coming sooner than later. But now only in my 30's, I'm not seeking a hand-out, just an affordable option. But hey, so is everyone these days right?

On the bright side, hopefully it'll all catch up to me in Europe next month where I can afford to be sick or injured.

I am only against Obama's health care plan because of it's lowering Doctor's salaries. Less of the more accomplished induviduals will want to be doctors if the salary is 50 - 100 thousand a year for 8 - 16 years of college, when an engineer requires only four and will produce at least twice as much income.

After participating in a telephone town hall meeting with Congressman Roskam this evening I realized I need to be better educated about the facts concerning the universal health care plan. Sadly facts are pretty hard to come by while there is no shortage of misinformation.
I was really surprised by some of the facts you shared and appreciated how you shared your personal struggles as it pertained to the subject. It's disappointing to know that so many of us can be so easily influenced by a meme. By looking at the cup half full I think this a great opportunity for you. Work on a meme for the good guys! (The good guys are the 40 million American citizens and legal residents that deserve the same opportunity for health care that those of us that have insurance enjoy).

The great irony (it seems like these political memes often have one) is that the current American medical system may be the one that comes closest to having "death panels".

My understanding is that HMOs are notorious for restrictions and limitations that are driven by bottom-line considerations. And for anyone needing new coverage, insurance companies are eager to make sure each customer is a profitable one by excluding pre-existing conditions and increasing premiums based on medical history. In both cases, business decisions are made which prevent those who need the most medical care from getting it.

I only know the Canadian system for comparison. There are typically some fairly simple rules around what's not covered -- e.g. elective cosmetic surgery or experimental treatments. Beyond that, your doctor can order whatever tests or perform whatever procedures they deem necessary and the government-run insurance plan will pay. I believe in the rare cases of abuse it's the doctors they go after, not the patients.

Are you saying that if you weren't over 65 you wouldn't have any medical coverage because your private insurance plan hit its lifetime maximum? That's also a US-only problem.

ben,

sarah palin is not smarter than we think. she's just got someone smart working for her. she doesn't writer her speeches. well, she doesn't really write. she reads. she's basically a talking head, and a pretty one, gotta give her that. she's just doing what she's told and trusting who's in charge of her publicity.

With the way health care is being covered on Fox News, CNN, and what not, it's no surprise the majority of people my age get their news from Colbert and Stewart.

I don't know what's scarier. That people get their news com comedians, or that our news channels are jokes.

There was this great editorial on CNN by Wendell Potter, who used to work as a PR rep for insurance companies. He basically detailed how millions of dollars funnel into right wing radio shows and news channels in order to spread false propaganda. Sadly, many of the people who speak out against all things Obama are the ones that would benefit most from a public option. He paints a horrifying image of the common citizen who is too blinded by false hate to see what's right in front of him.

"Even though he didn't have health insurance, and could see the desperation in the faces of thousands of others all around him who were in similar straits, he was more worried about the possibility of having to pay more taxes than he was eager to make sure he and his neighbors wouldn't have to wait in line to get care provided by volunteer doctors in animal stalls."

There was also another good article by an articulate and cogent conservative writer at the NYTimes about how some Republicans are out to sabotage Obama, even at the expense of their own ideology. One would think that Republicans would applaud Obama for trying to be fiscally conservative and cut the costs out of the bloated "socialist" Medicare program. But no. Instead, they conjure these false rumors about death panels and pulling the plug on Grandma simply to ensure that Obama's policy fails.

We seem to have descended into a kind of madness reminiscent of McCarthyism. I'm afraid that the American people aren't able to think critically and arrive at reasoned, well thought out conclusions of their own accord. Right now they seem only able to parrot the tired memes of the right. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Charlene said:

"After hearing the most outrageous and malicious lies told by Americans about the Canadian health care system"

Awesome timing - Just yesterday the new head of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Anne Doig declared:

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize. We know that there must be change. We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

Ebert arguing that we need this sort of system is even dumber than his two stars for The Godfather Pt 2. Stick with Transformers Rog and leave your tinker toy political views to open mike night at Borders.

Ebert: Well, you're just plain wrong. You have either mistakenly or deliberately misrepresented everything she said. If you or others are really interested in her opinion, you can look here, on an official site of the CMA, at an unedited interview with Dr. Doig:

http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2009/08/new-cma-president-anne-doig-urges.html

In passing she refers to the Canadian system of medicine as "the best in the world." Assuming you didn't deliberately misrepresent her, and assuming you (obviously) didn't know what she really said, if I were you I wouldn't trust your source for that information.

Here is my Great Movies essay on "The Godfather, Part II," which I originally gave three stars to, later writing about how it had risen in my opinion:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081002/REVIEWS08/810020300/1023

This hasn't been a real good day for your fact-checking skills.

Someday this may be seen as another turning point in American history. I expect it will. We're so cut off from the outside world - the suffering waged throughout it as a result of greedy practices, how many of them backed by our once great country - that we're dumb to the domino effects of out-of-control power (in this case, the power of scumbag righties and the pigs who line their pockets), even when they're right under our nose.

We're "free" in America, all right, but how many of us know how to use it? Economy of time is nonexistent for most of the folk who, ignorant to all but what the neocons deem important, vote against their own favor time and time again. The people who orchestrate this misinformation are evil; I know they are because they sleep at night. They don't mind manipulating the masses through faith. Here, freedom breeds stupidity.

I like what this guy has to say. Bill Hicks is also a wonderful mental tonic during times like these. I'll carry his albums with me into the Road Warrior wasteland after our society falls.

Isn't it about time for a Great Movies essay on Bulworth?

Someone left a comment earlier about people attending the town hall meetings and shouting down their representatives, and later turning out to not even be from the district. Ebert asked if he could prove that, so I looked for a link and found one regarding Gene Green's (D-TX) town hall.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/04/gene-green-townhall/

"Fox’s local Houston affiliate reporter, Duarte Geraldino, reported that he talked to the participants and found that “some attendees admit they don’t live in the district.” How did they get there? Geraldino noted “an internet campaign” by far right activists urging their allies to attend and heckle Democratic Representatives."

Thank you for your efforts to spread a little sanity. The amount of misinformation out there is truly maddening. Just glancing through the responses to your article, I see one reader writing, “Anyone who has dealt with, say, the Veterans Administration or any type of 'free' health clinics can give you many reasons why they prefer private health insurance.” How does one respond to this? In October of 2007, the Washington Monthly reported, "The VA (Veterans Administration) has the highest rate of patient satisfaction of any health care delivery system in the United States . . . [and] also comes out on top of virtually every study ranking the quality, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of U.S. health care providers." .

Ebert: That's what I hear.

Why do people keep insisting that you not show any bias, Roger? It's bad enough when they become indignant at your liberalism in the occasional review, but last I checked, this is a blog. An opinion piece.

Me thinks when they talk about a Liberal Media Bias, they're not only talking about MSNBC and the New York Times, but also the Lettermans and Eberts of America.

P.S. Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, et al., are trying to take away my right to make my own decisions about my life and health care.

In anticipation of some serious heart procedures, I recently updated my "living will" and other directives for how I want to be treated if I should become unable to approve treatments my doctor recommends. I also have the right to determine who I want to be responsible for making decisions if I should be unable to make them myself. It is assistance and counseling with those decisions that Palin is objecting to with her imaginary "death panels." Many people need help spelling out what they want done because they find medical and legal terminology to be confusing and intimidating. Yet Palin wants to deny people that counseling -- and to deprive people of a Medicare-like public option for insurance that, like Medicare itself, is more cost-effective than private insurance.

In every way, Palin wants to deny people choices.

Get Sarah Palin OUT of my health care!

Quote...Ebert:There has been a noticeable number of Canadians already in this thread praising their national health care system.

Two points...

1) There will be more. Everytime this issue comes up in the USA we get a flurry of American news gushing out mis-information about our system. So when the opportunity arises to defend it, we do. That being said we know our system is not the best and we have much to learn from Europe and Asia.

2) I believe the phrase "health care system" is part of the issue. Many Americans that do not support universal government coverage ask the question "do you really want government running your healthcare?". This is wrong. The governments of countries with national health care coverage do NOT run health care. They run health insurance. This is a big difference in perception. The only Canadian doctors that work for the government are in the army. Doctors in Canada are exactly the same private practitioners as you have in the USA. Americans shouldn't think of it as nationalized health care, it's nationalized health insurance. When they oppose "national health care", it sounds as if they are siding with the doctors and nurses that provide the care. This is the big swindle that we hear over and over again. They aren't siding with doctors and nurses, who support the idea of universal coverage as far as I've seen, they are siding with insurance companies.

Ebert: This thread is thick with satisfied Canadians.

Greetings Roger and fellow readers!

It's interesting to view the debate from the viewpoint of one who lives North of the US border. Here in Canada, we stood up to the powerful interests, (medical associations, doctors and insurance companies) in the 1950's and 1960's and have had universal medicare for some time.

By comparison, the measures before the Obama administration and congress seem very lax and to compose of half-steps at best, and are being watered down by the day. I don't think the Democrats or Republicans are up to the challenge. They really don't get the notion that health care is not a political or economic issue. It's a social issue that defines whether or not you live in a fair and compassionate country.

Chris Alders
Nova Scotia, Canada

Ebert: And...another satisfied Canadian! Check out the two comments here that quote the latest right-wing disinformation meme, claiming that the new head of the Canadian Medical Association, thinks Canadian health care is broken, when she just plain didn't say any such thing.

Interesting this is written the day after the head of the Canadian Medical Association says that their health plan is broke.
And go to the Canadian border and see in which direction people are going for medical help. While you're at it, look at the teeth of almost everyone in Britain. If you have a cold in Europe or Canada, see a doctor. If you are seriously ill, see a travel agent.
As for the Randy the German's comments, he sounds like the typical elitist, anti-American snob that is so prevalent in many European circles. (And in New York and inside the Beltway.) I wager he will still be a scruffy, unwashed "student" years from now, demonstrating when the government can no longer afford free tuition, and free bus passes, and subsidized flats.
I hope you wrote this as a comedy, Roger. I know I laughed out loud when you said you had a wife.

Ebert: No, she didn't say that. You're the second commenter in a few minutes to quote that lie about Dr. Doig. There must be a ditto site out there spreading that myth. Assuming you're interested, here is what she really said:

http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2009/08/new-cma-president-anne-doig-urges.html

As for your other comments, you don't sound like a very nice man.

Carlton Barnes,

Reading your comment, I thought of the great Bob Dylan's,
"Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
Some of the people can be all right part of the time.
But all the people can't be all right all the time
I think Abraham Lincoln said that."

Carlton Barnes,

Reading your comment, I thought of the great Bob Dylan's,
"Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
Some of the people can be all right part of the time.
But all the people can't be all right all the time
I think Abraham Lincoln said that."

(Sorry, I think I forgot name/email on the first submit).

To Mr. Doyle who wrote: "I think one thing that people are failing to see is the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does it say we have a right to health care. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's it."

You are completely correct, Mr. Doyle. It does not say any of those things in the Constitution. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are from the Declaration of Independence. How can you intelligently debate the issue of health care in this country - which clearly needs reform - when you don't even know which document you are referencing?

The specifics of this important debate are being drowned out by ignorance, greed, partisan rhetoric, self-righteous anger, fear mongering, and demagoguery.

"Ebert: "Socialism" has become a trigger word in the country, and no longer desribes anything."

Socialism is the new Communism. It's Cold War fears arising again in this country already.

Ebert: The government woudn't run the health care system. It would make insurance more affordable.

The dirty little secret of "health care reform" is that there are only three ways to decrease costs (Adam Smith 101): increase supply, decrease demand, and remove overhead. Let's take on each one individually.

Milady and I have talked to doctors about overhead. For the birth of Number 1 Son, her ob/gyn was barely clearing enough to order a pizza after the delivery. He ended up retiring to take care of his ailing father. Why? Insurance paperwork and liability insurance. I would like to see a pseudo-criminal system completely replace the current tort liability system. If a doctor commits malpractice, he is criminally liable to losing his license for X number of years. Allow private prosecution (as England does some still), but institute loser pays for them. Make the doctor liable for consequences without opening up unending financial liabilities onto the entire system. The Democratic plans make no tort reform, and do nothing to lower Medicare overhead (which are running doctors out of the system).

We are also making no steps to increase the number of doctors out there. There are less medical schools now than in 1900, and less doctors per capita than in 1900. Most medical schools are turning away 4 or 5 equally-qualified students for every 1 admitted. Allow doctors a path through to where they aren't crushed by debt, and make a bunch more of them.

As an aside, make doctors publish price lists, and make insurance companies publish their payment lists. One price for everyone. I shouldn't pay $200 for what Humana pays $40. Instead, the doctor charges $50, and Humana pays up to $60, so I'm happy. Or maybe Humana pays $40, but the doctor charges $50, and I have to cough up $10. Most other people would face jail time for what is called business as usual in the insurance field.

The third step is lowering demand, aka rationing. No one wants to say "you can't have it", but we need to say so. We want to tell the lazy poor "get out of the ER, go to the free clinic in the morning". 90% of the people who get cholesterol medicine don't really need it; it's just that the 10% who do need it need it desperately. We just can't tell right now who the 10% are. Most areas of the country don't have enough need of a medical helicopter to justify it. They also don't need a trauma center enough to justify it either.

The British and the Canadians have made those choices, and most of the time they work. If you have something simple, you get a treatment, and it works. But the edges are where the cost savings hit the road. If Natasha Richardson had been in the US, she would have been in range of a medical helicopter and a Grade 1 trauma center. Only God knows if she'd have lived, but because she was stuck with ground transportation and multiple hours from any trauma center, she didn't have a chance. Canada works because the US back-stops it. The really bad cases (troubled pregnancies, denied claims, etc.) can cross the border.

The real question: who pays for the really expensive stuff? I've heard some claims that 80% of Medicare costs are for caring for the last year of life. Number 1 Son cost our insurance $100k from pneumonia that destroyed half a lung, and then another 100K or so with pericarditis. That chopper, that trauma unit, that second MRI, that extra doctor in the ER, all those things cost a lot of money. The British and Canadians are saying no to the "extras", and it's starting to show.

Our health care providers currently have to compete on service, and it shows. They can do the 20% chance of success treatments enough times to convert them to 50% or 75%. They can drive the $50000 MRIs to $500. But, all that costs money.

There won't be "death panels" deciding individuals. That will be too gaudy. There may be appeal panels, but not often. Most of the time, there will be faceless groups making actuary tables, deciding that the chance of you living doesn't pay off, so you won't get the knee replacement, or the speech restoration surgery, or that quad bypass.

As a libertarian, I want a real market. Most people don't pay for car care insurance; it costs more than the actual work. Most health insurance is really health care plans. We pay the insurance X+Y dollars to spend X dollars on our behalf, when X is usually a well-defined minimum amount each year. 80% of the people in the US (under 65) would be better off having a plan that had a $4000 out of pocket minimum and paid 100% of everything else, and be able to put that $4000 back pre-tax. If you can't afford that plan or can't afford the $4000, then provide that money as charity or welfare, not by hiding the costs as health care overhead.

Push the spending decisions back onto the consumer. If it's important to do, then you spend the money, and pay for it.

Mr. Ebert, thank you for your compelling and sincere argument. I've been comparing up my own film analysis with your reviews since I've been old enough to turn on a computer, and to see you writing about issues beyond film is refreshing.

These days it seems like everyone I read about and watch has a fear of being ignorant; we all have to know and understand everything that happens in our modest little country. We all have our stories; we all have our arguments and opinions; and if we can't convince the man sitting next to us, we have to try and be louder and hope they just give up. Does it seem ironic that our country is built on an idea that natural rights and freedoms are inalienable but we are constantly derided for expressing them? Americans call their politicians racists and liars; politicians call Americans "unruly mobs" and Nazis "holding swastikas". Really, didn't the founding fathers design that First Amendment precisely for these types of comments?

Not quite.

While religion and beliefs belong to each individual, I have always believed that someone should treat others the way they would treat themselves; heck, my dad used to tell me that verbatim when I talked back to him as a kid. When our right to express our opinions is reduced drowning out discussions with boos and screeches and threats, it makes me wonder about humanity's natural instincts. Is this really what we have to be? When Americans portray their opinions like they are here, with lies and vulgar terminology (on the left and right) that Mr. Ebert mentions, I wonder do we even deserve our rights. Think about Lord of the Flies, or Conrad's Heart of Darkness--no matter how you dress up man, the instincts, the heart is a savage and hollow hole incapable of care outside it's own survival. It's impossible to extract original opinions when so many opposing sides want to call anything but their own wrong. Sometimes we make a sick mockery out of our own freedoms, and it saddens me.

I'm young (19), and while I admit I'm not as informed as some and there are probably several reading this that think I'm just a rambling idiot, I love my country, and I wish this argument could live up to the foundation it's based on. No mobs, no lies. If the president and his party truly believe in this government-based health care reform, tell me specifically why. No generalities (the president has not, to me, specifically described a single stanza of "his" plan, only defended it's necessity) no comparisons (health care is not and does not want to be run like the postal system), and no slant (if I disagree with this plan it does not mean I'm a racist or I want to swindle the poor to make a quick buck). Opponents, if you want to argue, quit screaming in my ear: talk about how the issue isn't about health-care reform, it's about government health-care reform (nobody has doubted something should be done, only whether it's should be government's role to do it). Talk about how it's passing would affect the freedom of choice Americans cherish so dearly (insurance companies cannot compete with a government option that has no interest in an economic profit, which would inevitably result in their demise). Talk about how there is no such thing as a free lunch (with the deficit as large as is now and the economy as slow as it is, how can we pay for this fund for the uninsured without taxing the stuffing out of the very people they want to cover). And talk about how every American already, by law, has to be treated in the event of an emergency, regardless of their ability to pay. If there is dissent, speaking softly and directly is more effective than hitting the rivals with a big stick and hoping they just crawl into a corner.

For once, please give Americans some means to debate these complicated issues rather than empty terms from polarized thinkers. I like to think America has the ability to look past vivid imagery and find meaning, if there's any to be had; but I could be wrong. If we can't be informed enough to say "why" we are arguing, maybe we sadly need something like "death panels" after all.

Maybe Mr. Ebert couldn't find an affordable flight to Canada for his health care. We must need affordable travel-care! Maybe we can a two-fer with the trillion dollars Obama wants to spend that we don't have.

"Do you know what a communist is?"
"No, but I want them all dead."

"Oppose socialized medicine. Because alternative forms of government are scary."

"It's the War on Terrorism. Anyone who wouldn't support that is an unpatriotic terrorist sympathizer."

"Support traditional marriage. Because homosexuality doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy inside, and that's enough reason to legally impose bigotry."

"If the President does it, it's not illegal."

"The ACLU is un-American. It supports common civil rights for people I don't like."

And it's all because nobody ever taught people how to think.

"Life is tenacious; it is endowed with the impulse to survive and the power to heal. Ultimately, it is we ourselves who cure our illness, and the decision to undertake this battle arises from within."

I try to quell my anger as I write. Firstly, I am Canadian and resent the American characterization of our health care system in American politics. American right-wing politicians fling disparagement's at our country's governance when they use no empirical data to substantiate their claims. No system is perfect but our system is infinitely superior to yours. I find the view that personal capitalist gain outweighs the health care needs of the general public repugnant and distasteful. The idea that a country can commodify a person's right to life (a right entrenched in your constitution) is depraved and sickening. I would go as far as to characterize such an ideology as psychotic. You possess the means to insure the health of your citizenry but refuse to out of some misplaced fear about the term socialism? Or perhaps your aversion to using any of your money for altruistic reasons. You'd rather spend it on meaningless consumer products then provide health care for children whose families can't afford it? American's current opposition to universal health care system fills me with an immense sorrow for the future of humanity. Political nicety be damned. Those who oppose universal health care should feel immense shame at their deplorable ideology.

I am a brain cancer survivor and when I was diagnosed my Canandian doctor advised e that I would have had to wait six months for an MRI in which time I would have died. He also said it would be 5 months before surgery if it was needed. All I know is I have had many MRI's and Dr. appointments in the same day good luck with that with Nationalized Healthcare.

Ebert: It's the rare Canadian who cannot spell "Canadian."

Roger, you wrote in a comment to Doyle:

"Wealthy people do not pay the bulk of the taxes. Many of them pay no taxes at all. Proportionately, they pay a good deal less than their share. Who makes up the difference? You do."

In terms of income taxes, the wealthy pay more than their fair share.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/15/pf/taxes/who_pays_most_least/index.htm

In addition, many states, such as California and New York, have highly progressive state income taxes. Again, the rich pay the bulk of these state taxes.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0608/032-taxes-new-york-states-target-rich.html

What I think Roger is referring to is the fact that many Wall Street barons are able to avoid regular tax rates, since they claim most of their income as capital gains, instead of salary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30schumer.html

And of course, the wealthy can transfer assets overseas, can hire the best tax attorneys to search for loopholes, and can buy off crooked politicians.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/28/pardons_reemerge_as_issue_in_clinton_run/

Some of the poor may actually come out ahead in terms of federal benefits (food stamps, free lunch programs, EITC, etc.). Where the working poor and middle class get shafted is payroll and sales taxes. However, it's still doubtful that even with federal and state income tax, payroll, sales, etc. that the average middle class or poor person pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the average rich person does.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1797

On the other hand, student loans represent a "hidden tax" for many ex-college students (includes those that didn't graduate, but still took out loans). They can deduct the interest they pay on the loan, but only to a certain amount. These loans make it difficult to save up for a house and can delay childrearing. My student loans were my biggest burden for many years; I only recently paid them off after 8 years.

One thing I've never understood...

Many on the right get all up in a huff and say that if the Government takes over health care (which is not now nor ever a serious possibility) then people will lose the right to make their own decisions. Have these people never been told by their insurance company to see certain doctors because that is who is involved in the racket? Do they miss these things?

Look...I think it would be awesome if a Jeffersonian world existed, a world in which government existed in nearly name only and served only the most essential of duties because the people of a given nation and of the world could live in peace and harmony, and that all would be solved by the rational free market, and that people wouldn't try to crush one another for an extra buck. Yet, we don't live in that world. The business sector has shown time and again that, left to their own devices, they will give the public a big middle finger and do whatever possible for the aforementioned extra buck. Government MUST do certain things, b/c without their intervention and oversight the public would be permanently left in the cold by greedy executives. Health insurance companies treat sick, terrified human beings like commodities to be bought and sold and treated with as little medical care as possible, all in the name of making money. THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG AND EVIL.

If any meaningful health care reform is shot down, I hope the Sean's and Rush's and Sarah's and so on of the world are happy. I also pray that they are never rejected for a necessary medical procedure b/c their insurance coverage doesn't fit. I bet they'd love a reasonably affordable, endlessly available option then, wouldn't they?

To Mr. Doyle, who doesn't know his Declaration of Independence from his Constitution, and to Ron, who set him straight on the facts, let me add what our nation's Founders DID say when they wrote the Preamble of the Constitution, which reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That's right, they intended to "Promote the general Welfare", "Posterity", "domestic Tranquility." Read it, digest - it's right there in black and white. To me, it reads like a wholehearted endorsement of universal health care for all citizens. It certainly isn't referring to promoting the general welfare of insurance companies, now, is it?

You begin your article by criticizing the term "death panels" by Sarah Palin and it's inflammatory effect. However, you go on to use the same over the top (and intellectually dishonest) rhetoric to make your point.

You claim not to understand why people could be against "universal health care." The best you can guess is they are influenced financially by insurance companies (?!), they are fueled by right wing commentators, or they hate Obama so much, they think he "is a racist who hates white people. A person capable of saying that is clearly unhinged and in the grip of unconditional hatred." Well sure. But how many people are saying that? Do you really think that is why people are against it?

This is the classic straw man argument. You take the opposition, dress them up as lunatics, and then argue against THEM. It is no less dishonest or inflammatory as Sarah Palin's "death panels" line, which you repeat several times, even with "death panel" clips after the fact.

But Sarah Palin is not the issue, and it's dishonest (and lazy) to make her the issue. Insurance companies aren't even the issue. The issue is whether health care is a right. Is it, or not?

The best argument (that I've heard) FOR universal healthcare is that America is a very rich country, and it's not right that some people, through no fault of their own, can't afford health insurance. Therefore we as a country have a moral obligation to make sure everybody has quality healthcare.

The best argument (that I've heard) AGAINST universal healthcare is simply that healthcare is not a right. So by extension, it is morally wrong for the government to infringe on the rights of some people for the benefit of some other people, by giving them "free" health care.

That's all it is.

So, is healthcare a right? And if so, at whose expense?

If people are entitled to free health care, who is obligated to give it to them? What if these people refuse?

Also, if people think it is morally wrong for some people to not have healthcare, why don't they personally help them? Why is this not the proper subject of charity?

I would honestly like to hear your thoughts on this. I grew up reading your reviews and watching your show, and was genuinely saddened to hear about your illness, and am glad to hear you are doing much better. But if you are truly interested in understanding why decent people could disagree with you on this very important subject, you should address the real issues, and leave the political cheap shots out of it.

Ebert: Social Security and Medicare are not rights, either. They are benefits provided by the people to themselves through the democratic process.

Forty million Americans cannot qualify for, and some cannot afford, health insurance. Are you in favor of that? Who pays for your health insurance, assuming you have any? You and your fellow employees. Who would pay for universal health care? We and our fellow citizens. Just like we all pay for education, defense and the fire and police.

This is regarding those entirely fabricated 'quotes' about Doig. I have no idea how those two posters came up with their smears based on the article Mr. Ebert linked. This is the only passage that contains the word "implode":

DOIG: "However, what this whole US thing says to me is, you know, it’s the two-headed hydra. The physicians in each country are looking at the systems and saying, “You guys, the system is about to implode. It's going to fail.” And the US guys are saying, “Oh, my god, we don’t want Canada.” And Canadians are saying, “We don’t want the US.” Okay. Both of us need to sit down, each in our own jurisdictions, and come up with something that works for our citizens and for our doctors, and go forward. I mean, I think one thing that the US finger-pointing has done is it's made some Canadians who were complacent – you know, they were content to sit back and think, “Oh yeah, I've got the best healthcare system in the world” -- maybe they're realizing that, oh, maybe it isn't."

She essentially notes that everything is not perfect in Canada. But NOWHERE does she say their system is "imploding." How can people distort what's written or spoken so grotesquely?

Oh wait, Mr. Ebert explained that. I would only add to your comments, Roger, that commercialism and capitalism make it easier to exploit the power of the meme. Headlines, tags, substitute pejoratives: they're used to sell something, invariably, and in this case it's a broken health care system. We are a consumer culture, and the finer an item is, the easier we consume it. We've stopped asking about the truth of things. If those against the Obama health care plan were really level-headed, the majority of them would have branded Palin's term as a gross distortion immediately. They didn't, because it sells a broken system.

I have a chronic condition. I was on a one-year contract with a local university; when it ran out, I lost my coverage and couldn't get it back. My specialist wouldn't see me and referred me to a clinic for low-income, non-insured patients. That clinic then tried to charge me $700 for an exam that lasted 15 minutes. I applied for charity and eight months later finally had the bill brought down to about $175. Yeah, the system works great.

"I received excellent medical treatment, which we all have a right to."

"The government wouldn't run the health care system. It would make insurance more affordable."

Roger, how can any system do both? If everyone has a right to excellent coverage, including the people who make very little income, than how can that happen - unless you increase the amount of money that the majority of people are paying now.

Whenever the government tries to make things more 'affordable', it increases the cost. College is ridiculously expensive and overpriced now. Why? Because the government tried to make it more 'affordable'.

Regarding death panels, I perused the various posts of this blog regarding them. The majority of comments talked about the 'stupidity' of calling them death panels. No one said anything about what was actually in the legislation and how it could possibly be interpreted. Now we learn that those 'death panels' have been removed from the legislation.

Warm regards...

"Death Panels" are just like "Death Taxes". If you someone opposes an idea and can't seem to make any headway by normal means of debate, they just add "Death" to the issue and it'll surely scare the hell out of some people. Fear works. Unfortunately, explaining the truth intelligently with details does not.

Actually Dr. Doig, the new head of the Canadian Medical Association, did utter those words in an interview with the Canadian Press. But her interview needs to be read in its entirety without cherry picking specific phrases.

The attempt to use the "socialized medicine" of other countries as a harbinger of an outcoe for the US is disingenuous. The problems related to wait times in the Canadian system is related to funding and infrastructure issues. America has an abundance of facilities, technology and capacity. This is about providing publicly funded medical insurance to those who want and need it and NOT about government controlled healthcare service delivery. Anything to the contrary is obfuscation, lies and fear mongering.

I agree with Rob about Bill Hicks. Wish he was alive. Amazing insight.

Some thoughts he had on Limbaugh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igvJ1Mew6Go (foul language...you've been warned)

The people spreading the "death panel" and other noxious memes ought to be shot and denied coverage for treating the wound. There's a special place in hell for every one of these bastards. What's terrifying for me is that nobody I've kept in touch with from my college graduating class (2006) has health insurance, since their employers don't provide it and, drowning in student loan debt (a problem scarcely addressed with regard to impossible-to-discharge private loans), they can't even begin to afford the junk insurance available to them otherwise. I can't speak for everyone, obviously, and it's entirely possible that the majority of 25- and 26-year-old college grads are carefree and affluent (ha!) - but these are smart people, from a variety of disciplines, some with graduate degrees, now working sub-$10/hr part-time jobs, some going back to school just for the benefits. I cannot reasonably envision happy futures for any of us, at least not approaching anything our parents might have thought possible. No, I think it more likely than not that we'll witness a rising number of men and women in their twenties and thirties, people who in earlier decades might have led accomplished lives, dying off among the ranks of the uninsured, unable to treat illnesses they might once have lived with. Maybe that's paranoid, but then again, what is there to be optimistic about?

yes obesity is a major factor in American life expectancy.Obesity is a medical condition. The terrible infant mortality rate is another factor.Both factors result of poor primary health care.to lower these factors you need to start managing people's health long before they reach the emergency ward. America's health is failing because people wait so long before dealing with health issues.The more it costs the more they delay, and the sooner they die.Removing costs at the point of delivery is a way to reverse this.

Wrong again Ebert. Read the damn bill. Obama wants a single payer system run by the government. He has been FILMED saying so. People leaving private plans will not be able resume their private insurance. Private insurance plans will not be able to sign up new members. The govt plan will undercut all other private plans. The govt will at the same time mandate to all private plans what services they can provide. The govt plan will be tax payer funded. Private plans will not. Govt plans will likely be run just like your amazing public schools there in Chicago.
Obama is not serious about reform he wants a transformation. A takeover. I don't beleive him because real reform would include Tort reform. Real reform would not provide health care for illegal aliens. True reform would empower the individual and not the govt or insurance companies. Obama does want health reform but he also wants POWER and to re-elect democrats. An example would be his pledge to not allow earmarks in the stimulus bill. The bill he signed had thousands of earmarks to include 4 billion to ACORN ( the paramilitary wing of the DNC) Oops ...my bad. I can imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth GW Bush gave 4 billion to the NRA .
The reason why America is 42 in life expectancy has nothing to do with access to health care. It is all about behavior, culture, diet and wait for it....PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Was it the doctors fault you were overweight Ebert?? We have the best health care in the world but the unhealthiest population.
You are an Obama groupie. You too are as much a zealot/ cool aid drinker as any Rush Limbaugh listener. I would rather trust my health care to the robber baron insurance companies than the government....

Please don't put too much stock in the satisfied Canadians, Mr. Ebert. If the Government of Canada sent the gestapo around our hospital wards summarily executing the sick and elderly, Canadians would still cheer and rah about our care because we have it and the Americans don't, and it allows us to feel superior.

I'm a Canadian going on 40 who is not particularly satified with my care, but thankfully has never really needed it. I've gone to the emergency room twice in my adult life, and both times sat in the waiting room for several hours until it became apparent that I'd either get better or not, but that my pride-of-all-Canadians health care system had no time for me so I might as well go home.

I also once went to a clinic to have an infected cyst looked at. After several hours, my doctor saw me and said he'd "read somewhere" that you could put a rag soaked in buttermilk on it. I'll spare you the rather disgusting denouement, but it did turn out OK in the end. Again, no help from my pride-of-the-nation health care system. And I still maintain that what I pay in taxes should buy more than a disinterested mention of an old wives tale.

I wish I had a nickel for every time the topic of health care came up here and it quickly degenerated into a smug "I'm glad I'm not an American"-a-thon. Even if the conversation starts with mention of an emergency room horror story, it doesn't take long for the "it's better than Americas" to start. I've lost friendships just for arguing that maybe the world's more complex than "Canada good, America bad."

Want to piss a Canadian off? Mention that many other nations have two-tier health care and get much better outcomes than the Canadian health-care system, for less money. Up here there is one position on health care that can be safely spoken aloud in public. It's essentially as follows: "We have great health care and we can't make any improvements to the system because any change will just lead to American-style health care where they give all the health care to five rich old white guys and send everyone else who gets sick to Vietnam."

In Canada, the phrase "American style" is an epithet. We could probably have the Heimlich Maneuver banned if enough people started calling it an "American-style anti-choking procedure." The government would then sink a lot of money into coming up with a "made in Canada" solution. It'd be exactly the same, cost a lot more (trust me, they'd figure out a way to tax it) and would be called "Unchoke Canada."

Another frustrating thing about universal health care is that it leads to elections and policies based on fear and scare tactics. For most the 1990s and into the 2000s in Canada, we had a Liberal Party in government that was essentially a kleptocracy, and they managed to win election after election just by convincing Canadians that "THE OTHER GUY" was going to take away the free health care. They had nothing to back that up, just constant references to a "hidden agenda."

(When people would bring up the hidden agenda of the Conservative Party, I'd respond that it was preferable to the right-out-in-the-open agenda of the Liberal Party, which, near as I could tell, mostly involved stealing. But I digress.)

I do believe in universal health care, but I also believe two other things. First, health care is not a right. Anything that has to be provided by someone else is not a right, it's a privilege. Second, no country should consider a health care service to be "cherished" or "the envy of the world" or "a sacred tradition." It's a bureaucracy. A necessary one, and important one, but a bureaucracy nonetheless.

And as irrational as Americans might be about their health care debate - and I'd say the irrationality goes both ways, at least from my viewpoint - at least it's being debated. In Canada any discussion about our system that doesn't boil down to platitudes and anti-US bigotry is considered out of bounds for polite discussion. On the whole, I prefer the US approach. A bit of shouting is better than mindless acquiescence.

I can imagine a sort of utopia. It includes people discussing issues intelligently and rationally to come to the best possible solution. It includes politicians who realize that the most important issue at hand is the welfare of the citizens they currently serve, and not petty political fighting with the other side. It includes people of differing ideologies recognizing that, though they may see things differently, their main goals in life are not so different, and perhaps they should, I don't know...work together? Get along from time to time? Stop trying to tear each apart?

This "utopia" does not exist and will probably never exist, but it would be nice if we could at least try. The real life situation is less than inviting.

I think that the Democrats are making a genuine effort at reform. They seem (to me, at least) to be the most honorable people present. The Republicans seem to be trying to eviscerate this reform effort, and though they claim to be doing something good for the public, I would imagine they see this as a way of attacking President Obama and the Democratic Party in general. Perhaps they just want to regain political power (which would tend to make them less honorable, and more self-serving). The public is reacting to this, and I cannot begin to fathom what motivates them. Perhaps they fear what they call "socialism." Perhaps they are worried about higher taxes, or an inefficient beaurocratic healthcare system. Perhaps they really believe that there will be "death panels." They just seem to be lost in the middle of both their own personal views, and this overall ideological battle that is taking over the country.

It seems that basic reason has left this country, to be replaced by petty ideological squabbles and self-serving goals. It is sad that it has happened now, at the one moment that sweeping changes could be made to a lagging system. It would be nice if the uninsured (and underinsured) could be given help, if wasteful practices could be cut out of the healthcare system, if the insurance companies could finally be given a strong competition (as long as their primary goal is to make money, will they ever be fully trustworthy? Won't they continue to provide an inferior service if it gives them a chance to make a better profit?). We essentially stand on the brink of reforms that could give people a chance for a better life, and we are merely fighting over it.

Another satisfied Canadian here. My fathers life was saved a few years ago with very complicated emergency surgery and he's still alive to this day.

My grandmother lives in northernmost Newfoundland. She's 88. She had a severe bloodclot in her leg a month ago. She could have died or, maybe worse, lost her leg. If she lost her leg, she probably would've lost the will to live and I can't imagine that suffering. But the doctors operated right away, removed the clot, and she's back to health. This is in Nowhere, Newfoundland.

There are cases out there that are sad and sometimes horrifying, but they are the exception, not the rule.

I posted a diary entry on DailyKos a few weeks back entitled, "If I were an American, I'd be Dead", which chronicled my experience with near-total kidney failure two years ago and how I made a full recovery thanks to Canada's health care system.

One of the commenters on that post could have been my twin, and her story upset me terribly. She is only two years older than me and suffered kidney failure due to under-regulated diabetes. But instead of seeing her doctor in time to make a full recovery, she waited because of the cost and is currently on dialysis. Her treatment is currently paid for largely by her husband's insurance, but she is about to hit his lifetime cap and get switched over to Medicare which will only cover 80% of the $70,00+ per year dialysis bill. Which will bankrupt her. And since she has no hope of ever being able to afford a transplant, her plan is to go into hospice care and wait to die.

Bankruptcy vs. slightly higher taxes. Death vs. a healthy life. Constant worry vs. peace of mind. This is the difference between being an American and being ANYONE ELSE in the civilized world.

I watch what is happening south of the border and I weep for America. I had some hope last October, but now I fear that the elected representatives of the United States really are wholely owned and operated by corporate interests. And I fear for my country, for we are most certainly next.

Anyway, don't take my word for it - go talk to Kiefer Sutherland about his grandpa. He'll tell you.

Folks opposing the public option or any kind of reform are afraid that health care will rationed and the whole thing will go out of "our hands". Isn't it already rationed by insurance companies? Very blatantly! Aren't people denied care already? Yes!!

Who says private companies (stupidly referred to as "we the people") are warmer at heart than the government? Undermining government and considering it an outsider is ignorance beyond belief. Why is USA regarded as the most advanced nation in the world - technology (originates from government-run academic institutions), military might (run by the government), roads & infrastructure, democratic freedom, justice system and 300 years of legacy. We are not here because of corporations and capitalism alone; we are here by trusting the government, becoming a part of it, improving it, participating in the system, not by ignoring and vilifying it.

Sorry Mr. Ebert, you are wrong. A death panel has already been approved and funded. The slight of hand was accomplished by passing it in the last Porkulus, i.e. Stimulus, that was passed by our worthless congress, before anybody realized what was going on, not that they bother to read their own bills anyway. The government has no right to make determinations about my healthcare. The amazing rate at which this administration its stepping on and shredding the Constitution of the United States is amazing. So, let's at least put this in a legal framework. It is illegal for Obama and his minions to do what they are doing.

Their agenda is not health care, but opposition to the Obama administration.

If there's any consolation, it appears that the "death panels" meme has been subsiding in the last couple weeks. It gained currency when the health care initiative was first being formulated, but I believe it's waning now. At least I hope so.

The latest tack is an economic one: "How are insurance companies expected to survive when they have to compete with public insurance?" I have no problem when conservatives frame the issue in this way. My guess is that most Americans would say: "Screw the insurance companies, I just want to go to the dentist."

Though Obama was not exactly suave on presenting this point, the postal service actually is a good example of why this isn't an issue. FedEx, DHL, and UPS actually became companies after the postal service existed, and they still were able to make money.

I don't understand the argument that all citizens have a "right" to health care. Do people have a right to food and shelter too then? Should we force the homeless into government housing and force feed them? Of course enforcing that would be so hopeless that it does not even warrant serious conversation. It is simply not possible for everyone in the country to have the absolute highest quality medical care; it just can't be paid for. Just like every other item or service in the world, there must be some form of rationing, either be price, or by government, and while not palatable to some, I would unequivically have to vote for the former.

Ebert: How does that apply when it comes to you or your family?

Please let me know where you think I am wrong.

Roger, What have you done to me? I read your blog frequently, and now I have spent a good part of the morning captivated by the variety of insights you provoked. Again and again, I see why your blog is worth returning to! But, could you have some way of getting my work done at the same time?

Now, you've again given me pause and actually provoked me to offer a thought, feeble though it be. I have lived and worked in Rome for 9 of the past 15 years, and I must confess to admiring their "social skills." Because my job involves immigration (I work for an International religious Order whose members, from all over the world, come to study at the Roman universities), I am continually struck by the government's "good sense," in controling the cost of pharmaceuticals and in offering health care for all, though many have private insurance to "back them up." A small anecdote: a woman with MS had come to Rome for a pilgrimage, and, having forgotten her medication, asked me to help her. I went to a pharmacy and, having the name of her medication ready, was told that it would cost EUR 20 for a 15 day supply (about $25). When I gave her the medicince, she asked, "Can we go to ANOTHER pharmacy too?" In the US, a 15 day supply would have cost her over $200. She was ready and willing to lie to another pharmacist to get more!

I guess what I want to offer to this wide spectrum of a debate is that there once were regulatory agencies established precisely to make essential things NOT available for the "open market" of supply and demand. "How much is it WORTH to you?" should never be applied to the essentials of human health and shelter. That's why utilities were regulated ("how much is heat worth to you?" "how much is electricity worth to you?" "how much is gasoline worth to you?"). Alas, medical regulation, when left to the "market economy" asks the same question and, unfairly so: "how much is your life worth to you?" It should at LEAST be worth the concern of us all! No one should have to run a lottery or have benefit dinners just to pay for their medical care. How much is it worth to have your Parkinson's medication? How much is it worth to you to maintain your insulin levels (no diabetic pays ANYthing for their care in the Italian system)? Shame on a government that doesn't protect its citizens from the greed of the open market that rapes its victims with outlandish profit-mongering only to supply notepads to doctors (and that, alas, is the least of their marketing expenses!).

People can make fun of Italy all they want, but they won't find many Italians who envy the US system!

Thanks, Roger, for your voice which keeps me sane on many a weekday. At least I know that people are trying honestly to sort through all of this.

Hal Nelson - Shame on you.

It is baffling to me that this is even a debate, to be honest. 46 million Americans lack health insurance, and 25 million are under-insured, with healthcare costs' representing 16% of GDP, which is twice the OECD average. You see, that right there is a problem. I know firsthand how much pride Americans take in being different from the rest of the first world in so many areas. Lacking a universal system of healthcare coverage should not be one of them.

I feel that too many constituents have grown large ears and sensitive eyes. A political catchphrase can shine so bright that people can only see the dark, blurry silhouettes of truth and fact, and they are not much interested in investigating these figures. Keeping a mind for learning is quite tiring, and if you can shout loud enough you won't hear anyone trying to "reason" with you.

It makes me wonder if I could coin my own terms to my benefit. I didn't much like getting shots as child; maybe I could call the doctors "White Coat Euthanists" and run them out of town. Huh, well maybe that's not catchy enough. I used to think Billy Flynn was such a cynic. After some thought, maybe he was just a realist.

Roger, you responded to my earlier accusation of bias by saying "An opinion is not a bias. Not mine, not yours."

True enough. But bias, according to the dictionary (Random House), is "a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question". And it's clear that your opinions about health care reform have biased you against engaging in a fair consideration of opposing views on the matter.

There are real reasons why many Americans oppose Obama's plan, and there are real problems with other countries' systems. You lessen the significance of your own arguments when you caricature the entire other side as easily-manipulated, "unruly" simpletons with no legitimate concerns worth addressing.

Roger Ebert might find it amusing that an angry shouting Obama oppositionist has been using his Journal for intellectual stimulation for over a year now. Its easy to see why though; important and interesting ideas and thoughts being conveyed with smart yet easy to digest words transcends politics. And on his science fronts its been just gospels of truths. In his subjective waters, its always rational and ambidextrous.

But could it be because this is only his 2nd political blog, ever? And there’s the sanctimonious leer.

I didn’t want to pay for my neighbors mortgage. He bought a bigger house than he could afford. I did not. You may want to and I applaud your morals and respect your right to choose as an American. Nonetheless, Obama forced both of us to. You’ve expressed great philanthropy and I’ve rewarded failure for which I’m disappointed

I don’t want to pay my neighbors doctor bills. He is just as able and unskilled as I yet he chooses not to work as hard as I. Ebert may want to and I am humbled by his choice of charity. But if we are both forced to I’ll be rewarding laziness which shall evolve my disappointment into anger. But what about a catastrophic illness that no one can afford? Ah, but Ebert’s mise en scene has us thinking that obamacare will pay for everyone. It can not.

I am Now aware that the US is 42nd in life expectancy yet we spend more for it. It’s nearly as terrific a sound bite as ‘death panels’. More importantly, I think, is what we’re dying of. Its going to take a lot of health care to unclot everyone’s super-sized arteries.

Too many Americans seemingly and almost willfully poison ourselves. But that’s our American right. And yet there’s astonishment when half of us refuse to finance our neighbors golden elixir. And there’s more too. Some say our racial disparities shorten our expectancy. Others say it’s our high infant mortalities. But one thing is for sure. Ebert’s too smart to confuse causation with correlation. And he sums this thought up with, “These figures are pretty clear.” [as to why health insurance costs so much] To say he glossed over a dissertation sized topic would be using too petty a verb

Ebert writes that America is the only developed nation on earth that doesn’t provide ‘Universal Health Care’. ‘Universal’ seems to mean to him that everyone gets it. As I see it, everyone who can afford it and wants it already has it. Those retired and cant afford it also get it through Medicare. And those not retired and cant afford it also get it through Medicaid. Who did I leave out? Those who cant afford it but still don’t want it? It’s been said only 5 million American need it, want it, AND cannot afford it. I don’t think any far-right commentators object to only paying for them.

Which bring us neatly to the nub of my squabble. Ebert doubts the Town Hall protestors would know what a public option is. As if he’s saying they don’t know why they’re yelling other than Sarah Palin told them to. Why such a cheap shot? I could argue yelling started the ball rolling on the Revolution and Abolishment. Allow me to balance the argument by saying this yelling is checks and balances at its finest.

He then carps at the health insurance companies like they’re Exxon Mobil lobbying to ban electric cars: the greedy corporations always squeezing grandpa for every last penny. But even the liberal The American Prospect wont deny the public option should lead to a single payer system. But Ebert opines, “Not at all.” But how long could Toyota stay in business if fully loaded Obamamobiles retailed for $5k?

I almost sense Ebert’s musing on Obama’s frequent meme: ‘Our health care system is broken’. Equally impossible to refute as ‘Death panel’, but might an alien see both as lies?

Is there really such a thing as an ‘Independent’?

Roger, your repeated high-handed dismissals of commenters who mentioned CMA President Dr. Anne Doig's recent statements on the state of the Canadian health care system are off the mark. Here is a direct, lengthy quotation from Dr. Doig's website, as linked to by you above.

There is a problem in longterm care in this country. People need to wake up and smell that coffee, and the CMA is certainly not going to be shy in giving that message to the public. However, what this whole US thing says to me is, you know, it’s the two-headed hydra. The physicians in each country are looking at the systems and saying, “You guys, the system is about to implode. It's going to fail.” And the US guys are saying, “Oh, my god, we don’t want Canada.” And Canadians are saying, “We don’t want the US.” Okay. Both of us need to sit down, each in our own jurisdictions, and come up with something that works for our citizens and for our doctors, and go forward. I mean, I think one thing that the US finger-pointing has done is it's made some Canadians who were complacent – you know, they were content to sit back and think, “Oh yeah, I've got the best healthcare system in the world” -- maybe they're realizing that, oh, maybe it isn't. And people who individually have experienced things that are not quite right, people who have experienced long waits, people who have been sent home with services -- they may have thought they were individuals and something bad happened to them but, overall, the system is good. Maybe some of those people are now beginning to realize the problems are far more systemic than they thought.

Sounds to me like the previous commenters cited Dr. Doing more or less accurately.

Ebert: Here is the interview:

http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2009/08/new-cma-president-anne-doig-urges.html

I love the US, I was born there. Really I was. Colorado Springs. I love the US, really I do.

I am you.

But only "we" Americans could turn what is a simple actuary argument (how to spread the health risk in the most efficient manner) into an epic struggle between good and evil.

I am an American at heart, but having lived in other parts of the world I would humbly say, tone it down a bit, and you can learn from other ways of doing things, really, you can?

You can even live longer by learning about other ways of doing things.

Think about that.

Regarding Ebert's condescending response to Charlene here:

http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2009/08/new-cma-president-anne-doig-urges.html

In passing she refers to the Canadian system of medicine as "the best in the world." Assuming you didn't deliberately misrepresent her, and assuming you (obviously) didn't know what she really said, if I were you I wouldn't trust your source for that information....This hasn't been a real good day for your fact-checking skills. >>>>>>>>>

You pretty clearly didn't read that interview at all, Mr. Ebert. And that would be okay---except that you busted a whole sneering takedown based on it. Believe me, Dr. Doig does NOT assert Canadian health care supremacy in this interview. Not at all. Quite the opposite. Charlene was right. You are wrong, and were kind of a jerk about it besides. You can derogate people all you want for not engaging in "civil discourse", but I've read the comments thread here, and on dozens of other sites, and the trend is clear: the informed opposition to government-run health care is generally careful and measured in its assertions, and the angry left engages in ad hominem attacks and facile elitist condescension.

In fact, Charlene's post may have been a little indignant---but it was wholly accurate. Your response was not only snide in tone, but blatantly and profoundly inaccurate. Your synopsis of Dr. Doig's interview is diametrically opposite the clear intent. If anything, Doig repeatedly held up the statement "Canadian health care is the best in the world" as a canard held up by "complacent" Canadians (my guess? Most of the "Canadians" you see on this thread are either in that category, or, well---not Canadians). She also essentially referred to the proponents of Canadian health care as freeloaders with overdeveloped notions of entitlement. You can disagree with Dr. Doig, but don't misrepresent her. I don't understand.....I just reloaded and looked again, and again you're saying that Dr. Doig doesn't say what she transparently says. Are you trying to link to another interview? Seriously, have you read it?

Just for example:

"I mean, I think one thing that the US finger-pointing has done is it's made some Canadians who were complacent – you know, they were content to sit back and think, “Oh yeah, I've got the best healthcare system in the world” -- maybe they're realizing that, oh, maybe it isn't. And people who individually have experienced things that are not quite right, people who have experienced long waits, people who have been sent home with services -- they may have thought they were individuals and something bad happened to them but, overall, the system is good. Maybe some of those people are now beginning to realize the problems are far more systemic than they thought."

Did you just read the words, "overall, the system is good" and stop reading? Because that's not what the passage says.

Here's another:

"We are acutely aware that the provision of longterm care is inadequate in Canada. So part of my point is it really irritates me when inflammatory rhetoric is used instead of people being able to engage in debate. There is a problem in longterm care in this country. People need to wake up and smell that coffee, and the CMA is certainly not going to be shy in giving that message to the public."

HOW did you read that and think she is extolling the Canadian system?

Here's another:

"I mean, let's tell people [sarcastically] their healthcare is being threatened because the doctors are bad people and want to bring in the private sector. That's simply a scare tactic. We have to engage the public to say, “Look, folks, here are the real costs, here is the real situation. You want your care. How do you want it paid for?” And of course the cop-out answer is “I always want it free and I don't want to pay anything.” Sorry! We all know that's not sustainable. And we all know that models in other countries – wherever we're looking at things where there's a single route, then those models are failing."

Note that she refers to the classic "free health care" argument as a "cop-out answer", and also that she clearly is identifying the Canadian health care system (among others) as "unsustainable". I'm not changing the words. I just copied and pasted them.

Here's some more:

".....one of the hidden inefficiencies in our system – and I deliberately use the word “hidden” -- is no one is quantifying and talking about things like wait times between my decision to refer a patient for a non-urgent or mildly urgent – if you know what I mean -- to a specialist and when that specialist actually sees the patient. For example, if I see an elderly patient in my office this week, as I did on Monday, and I make an initial referral to have one of the orthopedic surgeons see her about changes of arthritis in her hip, thinking that somewhere down the line she might be a candidate for a hip replacement, it's going to be, who knows? Six months? Nine months? 12 months before that patient is even seen? Then she gets on the list to have whatever diagnostic tests need to be done over and above what I've already done, and then she gets on a surgical wait list."

Whoa! That doesn't sound too awesome to me. I direct your attention to Dr. Doig's DELIBERATE use of the word "hidden". Hmmmm.

More? Okay----here we go:

"At the moment, government -- and I use that in the lowercase-“g” sense, because it’s governments of all stripes -- all of them hide behind saying “We have the best medical system in the world, and medicare is being threatened!” This is not about medicare being threatened. This is about making it work over the next 50 years. It’s done a reasonable job for 50 years but it is not sustainable."

So, this one is a slightly more broad criticism, and subtle----but subtlety aside, there's really no way to read it the way you seem to be reading it, Mr. Ebert. I have copied out a large percentage of the interview you linked, and I can't find anything to support your assertions. Rather, it seems the text favors the "purveyors of misinformation" you have been fighting here on this thread. I guess you can call me a "not very nice person" if you like, but I'll derive some consolation from knowing I have good reading comprehension skills. :)

Ebert: Here is the actual interview. Doesn't sound to me like a person opposed to the Canadian system of health care;

http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2009/08/new-cma-president-anne-doig-urges.html

Completely off topic.

I'm conflicted with regards to The Passion of Joan of Arc. I understand and greatly respect the work of art that is this film but by God in Heaven I can't stand watching it. It's too much for me. It instills within me no sense of enjoyment and does not entertain me. Is it okay to view a film as a great work but also refuse to view it personally? I guess it's similar to The Passion of the Christ. I know many who love the film but cannot sit through it at all.

The Canadian healthcare system has some flaws, some deep. There are a paucity of rural doctors, and wait times are too long. Most Canadians agree with this. But most Canadians would rather fix what ails the system, the abandon it (don't belive me? Google it).

Think about it. If Canadians disliked the system, why do they still have it? It costs the provincial governments a fortune to run, so you would think they would jump at the chance to get out of the health care field entirely (Canadians by and large cherish their social programs, but abhor paying high taxes). Yet "socialized medicine" continues to exist in Canada after many decades. Perhaps it's because Canadians actually like it, and they see it as a net benefit? Nah, can't be.

I personally believe that if there was a right answer, it would be obvious, and such squabble would be impossible. Americans don't really know what they have to expect from this health care plan, who will be right, who will be wrong; who will be kind of right and who will be kind of wrong. The details haven't even been fleshed out yet and people are trying to analyze long-term effects. There's nothing really to fear, I guess; I'm pretty sure a better word is angst.

Ebert wrote: This thread is thick with satisfied Canadians...

And it's not that we think our Medical system is perfect - ask any Canadian in here and they'll tell you; the system has its flaws. We're always grumbling about it, moreover. But rather, it's because the alternative is on view every day, south of the border. That's why we feel better off.

And I for one, would rather b*tch about the medical care I can get, than the one I can't afford.

The Daily show is as almost always spot on.

http://www.funnyordie.com/embed_videos/0ff6f53a5b/healther-skelter-obama-death-panel-debate

First, I'd like to ask the commenters here who are against healthcare reform a question -- I'm one of the working poor with no medical insurance. Not only do I not have insurance, I'm uninsurable due to having been in a multiple-trauma car accident as a teen, decades ago, resulting in ongoing medical issues. I would very much like it if medicare or medicaid was open to me. In fact, I sorta feel my life depends on it. So please, if you would, explain to me what your opposition is to allowing me and those like me to get medical treatment? Why, exactly, are you standing in my way and what would you have people like me do?

And, next, to Mr. Ebert: Bless you. Thanks for writing so clearly, for adding your voice and trying to make a difference, and for sharing your personal story. I'm so glad you're still with us.

"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." FD Roosevelt

But fear is your best friend if you want to lead the retreat.

DEATH PANELS! DEATH PANELS! DEATH PANELS!

What could possibly be the explanation for the American people's positive genius for falling for the most blatant and obvious propaganda? I have a possible theory if you're interested in hearing it....

We're idiots.

That could be the only explanation. What other reason could there possibly be? Any takers?

When a contemptible half-wit like Sarah Palin "twits" (an appropriate word) about "death panels" and the next moment it is a serious part on the national conversation - there is really something seriously wrong.

Here is (Excuse me, I meant "was") a golden opportunity for real reform and the idiotic Americans are screaming about socialism. Is it any wonder that we are the laughingstock of the industrialized world?

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

I have been watching this whole issue from somewhat of a distance. My U.K. husband and I(a U.S. citizen)split our time between the U.K.( I am a student) & the U.S. When we are in the U.K. we use the NHS. When we are in the U.S. we have no insurance.

In the U.K. we do not worry about going bankrupt because of a medical crisis, we can get medical attention even if we do not work or have private insurance. No system is perfect. I wish the NHS would be a bit more focused on preventative medicine, but all in all the concept of basic health care available to all is a much kinder system.

Making health care available only to those people who can pay or fit some rather narrow definitions of eligibility for Medicare/Medicaid shuts out over 40 million people in the U.S. If that were the case in any other industrial country in the world, we would call it disgraceful.

I pray that Obama's political bravery in tackling health care will result in a miracle of good legislative sense, allowing everyone access to decent health care.

Further to what some of our Canadian friends have been saying, I'd like to add that we've got a publicly-funded health care system in Australia. It's been in place for almost 35 years now and last I checked, this country still hasn't fallen under the power of grandma-killing communists.

I enjoyed reading your column on health care reform, Mr. Ebert. AND the Joan of Arc clips, too. I am a nurse, working in Chicago in a busy inner-city hospital which serves the working poor. Every shift, I take care of many people who are working, raising their family, and don't have health insurance. These people get sick more often because they don't get the preventive care that we all need. I am grateful that I myself do have health insurance for myself and for my family. I am for President Obama's health care reform ideas. I believe that every living person deserves health care.
It bothers me that historically our government can find the money to make war even when our own defense is not concerned, yet we hear some cry foul when we talk about human rights and equal access to health care. Our country was founded on people wanting to do the right thing. We are at a crossroads now. I trust that we will grow to be the inclusive, compassionate nation depicted in the founders' documents.
I have very strong feelings about this not only because I am a nurse, but also because I have been living with cancer since 2003. I am glad to still be here, and I am very glad that you are still with us, too. Thank you for your eloquence and heart-felt column. The dialog is healthy, although sometimes heard to listen to. -- Joy Davis, RN

I live in Austria.
Depending on which statistic you believe my country is among the 10 to 15 wealthiest countries in the world. According to the UN world population prospects of 2006 Austrian people have the 4th highest life expectancy in Europe.
And we have public health care.
The system is flawed, in deficit pretty much permanently, but it works. I had major surgery performed on my spine last year due to an accident and I had to stay in the hospital for about 2 weeks. How much did I have to pay for it? Nothing. Our public health care system is required to send us a yearly statement about how much we the systems has paid for us. The operation cost a total of around € 4000 (roughly $5600).
It is simply inconcievable for people in my country to have to pay for a broken leg or an arm injury - let alone get into debt because of it.
Sure, as I said the system is flawed. It covers little to no dental care, you have to be prepared to lie in a room with 5 other people in the hospital and you have to get certain (expensive) medications approved by a public health officer (who is by law required to be a GP). But guess what? The private insurance companies never went away. If you want better health care, or a more comfortable room in the hospital, etc. you can always get an additional private insurance that covers all the luxuries.
How regular working people, especially the ones who are not that well off themselves can be against this in the US boggles my mind. But what I think is really scary is the level of discourse this debate has been brought down to. Using this debate Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other right wing commentators have done everything shy of directly calling for the assassination of the president.
This isn't a political issue anymore, this is incitement to murder. It seems and it feels shocking how little the Republican party feels the need to distance itself from these tactics.
There will always be disagreement about national politics in a democratic system - that's the beauty of it. However, it seems to me that at least one of the political parties has chosen to forego olitical debate for death threats. How can Obama still engage someone that is quite literally calling for his head in a democratic process.

Roger thank you for this blog! And thank Chaz for her instincts! As for the health care issue I was wondering when the Karl Rove types would surface again after Obama was elected. And they have in such a vicious way. When I was 4 (back in the mid fifties) I was diagnosed with leukemia, my father owned his own business and our family had enough money so I was able to go to Boston to be treated by the great Dr. Sidney Farber (you may have heard of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston) We also lived in Boston while he treated me. I guess money helped a great deal because 50 or more years later I am still here and healthy. If my family didn't have the money and I am sure most (if not all) of the other children who were diagnosed with the same disease and didn't have the resources we had, I would be dead. We need a health plan in this county that would take care of all the children, not just the ones whose parents can afford it. To be against something like that is not Christian and being a Jew I know that it is against our religion because the base of the Jewish is Mitzphah...doing an unselfish deed for others. So to you followers of Sarah Palin (who is obviously being scripted by the likes of Karl Rove) I say you are not Christian (and if there are Jews against this you are not doing a mitzphah) I say be a real American and join together to support the plan to make sure ALL Americans are taken care of the way Dr. Farber took care of me.

As a born-and-raised Canadian who has taken free health care for granted his entire life, I genuinely don't understand this debate. I mean, understand it in terms of "we blindly oppose anything Obama does" but as for the opposition to universal health care itself, I really don't get it. And I'm shocked at how misinformed most people seem to be about it.

Imagine this: in Canada if I need a cast for a broken bone, I don't pay for it. If I need surgery, I don't pay for it. If I need to see my doctor because I have a sore throat, I don't pay for it.

People in the US seem to think you would have to make enormous sacrifices in terms of quality of care in order for this to happen, but I just don't see it. Doctors still set up private practices, and no government official has ever stepped in and told me who I'm allowed to see or who I'm not.

The enormous "wait times" you hear about are in non-life threatening cases with people who can reaonably afford to wait while others in greater need get in ahead of them. Believe me, if my health was in great risk and I needed an operation, I would be in the operating room right away. If I needed knee surgery, on the other hand, I might have to wait a few months. An uncomfortable few months, no doubt, but a small price to pay for free health care.

Anyway, I just don't get it. I hear people in the US all the time complaining about how their insurance company screwed them over. And yet these people who are shouting at the town hall meetings, who do they think they're shouting on behalf of?

Thanks, Roger for this wonderful essay. We have relatives who regularly send us forwards of the "birther" type. Things that are obviously distorted, untrue, easily checked, but forwarded anyway. We have tried sending them to Snopes to check their facts, but of course they're not interested in doing the research. Our new tactic is to forward the truth to them and all their circle. Yours is the first one we've sent. Will they even read past the first line? It will be interesting to see what their reactions are.

It's the disconnect between the idea of the fervently patriotic, flag-waving American citizen and the crushing realisation you couldn't give a toss about your fellow countrymen that shocks me. Seems you're all for "Americans" as long as they remain a concept; God forbid a living, breathing countryman should actually need some help.

It's the disconnect between the idea of the fervently patriotic, flag-waving American citizen and the crushing realisation you couldn't give a toss about your fellow countrymen that shocks me. Seems you're all for "Americans" as long as they remain a Platonic form; God forbid a living, breathing countryman should actually need some help.

I read some of the comments and I was surprised but then I noticed Oh Chicago Sun Times, Okay now I'm not surprised. Chicago you get what you deserve. As for you Mr. Ebert I use to respect you I haven't for a long time. Stick to movies, please. Hey 19 year old you're right you are uninformed now go get informed, and try some real history, start with the 20th century. Also try to do some living, and notice these people that are angry have done some living. Oh and don't expect to be informed by the likes of Obama, one thing he disdains is a well informed intelligent electorate, and the Constitution (that he's sworn to defend by the way). These things should be a warning sign. Ignorance, stupidity, and hatred, and those unscrupulous enough to fan those flames and then take advantage of them are why we have the administration we have.

As a doctor myself, what I am baffled by the most is *other physicians* who are opposed to health care that is universally available, and there are a lot of them, I am ashamed to say. Personally I think of these doctors as valuing quick profit over their Hippocratic Oath, which I find disgusting. My great grandfather was a doctor treating the poor in Honduras--they disrespect his effort as well as mine and their own when they shout about health care while dodging the question of "ok, so then exactly HOW do you suggest we get health care to the underinsured? How?" They never answer that question, all they do is argue that a universal plan won't work.

On the subject of death panels--I think palliative care is completely underutilized. We seem to have a belief in America: thou shalt not die. Did you know that 50% of our health care dollars go toward care in the last year of life? I've seen way too many of these cases, and frankly I don't understand what the heck we are trying to do by dragging out peoples suffering just because we have such Freudian death anxiety. More often than not, it isn't the patients that push for such extreme measures--it's the relatives who can't accept death. We live in such a sanitized, white-washed society where the elderly are shuffled off to live in nursing homes, we have no concept of end-of-life care, and as such Hospice (etc.) is never used to the extent that it should be.

And Palin's sound bite is just another example of her complete stupidity on the issue.

Watching the "debates" over health care has saddened me about the nature of politics today. Not long ago, opponents of the second Gulf War were being labeled by the right as un-American, crazy left-wing zealots. Now opponents of government health care are labeled by the left as un-American, crazy right-wing zealots. Doesn't anyone listen to the other side any more? I've lost confidence in Washington.

I generally lean to the conservative side in my views, but I do believe everyone should have access to health care. My concern is this: if I recall correctly, the national debt is now in the neighborhood of $12 - $13 trillion. How are we possibly going to pay for this? Medicare, to the best of my knowledge, is not known for staying within budget.

[[Long-winded column, when "Sarah bad, Barack Good" would have done just as well. Alexander Pope said: "Brevity is the soul of wit." Catch the essence. Sarah knows this.]]

This post really captures the problem, though not on purpose.

Shortness has become a virtue in and of itself. Sometimes, I suppose, shortness can capture a problem in a single, witty, devastating remark. And that's what's contemplated by "brevity is the soul of wit." But, more often than not, shortness is just for shortness's sake, and the shortness doesn't actually convey anything accurate about the topic. More often than not, shortness reduces while trying to seem like it's not.

For some reason, though, we assume that the quick remark cuts through and reveals, whereas the longer statement conceals.

And of course our shortened attention spans and increasing stupidity has resulted in brains that can't handle much more than sound-bytes anyway. I bet even this post is too long for many.

(This of course goes back to your recent article on stupidity.)

Furthermore....Brevity may be the soul of wit, but wit is just that. Wit is not the same thing as reasoned, effective political debate that's based in reality.

Agree with Ebert or disagree with him, there's just now way "Sarah bad, Barack Good" is a fair summary of his article. To my mind, that kinda detracts from any notion that it's a "witty" remark.

And even if the quip were more accurate than it is, it still wouldn't matter, because the remark has told us nothing about your thoughts on health care or anything else.

-Nighthawk

So many topics you bring up in so short a space! I will try and be brief!

It is a curious state we are in regarding the issue of how long we should keep people alive, and what we should do with them if they say they have had enough and want to die. Because someone CAN save a life, if the quality of life that person will enjoy afterwards is seemingly low, then SHOULD they save the life? And if the person wanting die is allowed to, what might that do to those around them who know they COULD save them, if for only a bit longer? Would they live with an unnecessary but reasonable guilt? These are the unanserable questions.

As for the memes (Thanks! A new word to play with, woohoo! Would those sending these out in e-mails be writing memerandums? Hmmm...) it is a dirty business, but one that has been going on since the Jay Treaty. Each side picks a point to drive home with the forcefulness of a Doublemint Gum jingle, and whover wins wins the issue. Rarely do facts win out. I for one never believed in death panels, though some of the language in reports written by Obama advisors years ago certainly had unsavory qualities to them. It was a tad low to hit so low the belt, but I doubt the administration abandoned this provision due to her. Even we Republicans find her bubble to the right of level.

As for the public option, this administration and a lot of the media has gotten so terribly wrong what the opposition is about. So many on the left seem annoyed that we opposing the bill are content with what we have, and don't see the problem with the current state of things. They only see the issue as black or white, either for it or against it. We as a nation are capable of many more that two ways of solving any problem. The first issue any of us has with this idea is that it has been dumped on us in such a brief amount of time. With TARP, we went along because none of really understood economics and trusted those who do. Health Care is something we all know a bit about, and while the creation of a competitor with the health care companies does sound good on paper, some Senators (Barney Frank at the lead) stating that this is a first step towards single payer is a bit distracting. Is that what this is leading up to? Yesterday I heard talk of the Post Office stopping Saturday deliveries. Isn't that governbment run? Isn't that fairly cut and dry, delivering mail? Why is it losing billions? What would happen IF the government DID run a single payer system? If it had problems then where would we be? It's the fear of the unknown that scares us, and the unknown is there because we haven't had the time to ask the questions that would make it known to us.

All most of us are saying is let's take the time to do it right. You can't set a deadline to something like this, or if you do that deadline should be a few years, not a few weeks.

A whole lot of Canadians have been on here raving about their health system. A few Brits, too. So I'll chip in with my fantastic experiences under another government-run healthcare system. I live in Australia, where there are both private health insurance companies, with private hospitals and so on, and a public health system run by the government. This is, as I understand it, the equivalent of the public option just ditched by Obama. It's called Medicare, just like in the states, and it's funded by a 0.5% income tax on income earned above a certain (relatively low) threshold. As a student, I haven't had to pay yet but I will when I graduate and get a job that pays well. If you purchase private health insurance, the tax is reduced (though I don't know to what exactly).

I'm 20 years old, a university student, and at the beginning of this year I went to my GP to look at a mole on my back that was growing irregularly. The doctor gave me a referral to a public hospital to get it excised. Three weeks after that, I went to the hospital and was in and out in a morning. I got the results two weeks later (clean). I didn't pay a cent for the entire process, which is great because I simply would not have been able to afford to do so and would have had to let the mole go unchecked otherwise. Try as I might, I simply cannot comprehend how a country could in good conscience turn its back on those that cannot afford health insurance. It simply baffles me.

Part of the difficulty arises due to the fact that the right-wing knows how to effectively market their ideas. Marketing is something that the left-wing is very, very poor at. Furthermore, the right-wing does have an incredible sense of humor...you can almost hear the laughter emanating from the words "death panel."

In order to reframe the debate, this policy needs a much better name. Do you remember the bills Congress passed earlier in the decade? "The Healthy Forests Act" (chop 'em down!) and "The Clean Water Act" (more arsenic anyone?) were two brilliant pieces of right-wing art, and tragi-comic to be sure.

What the public option does is actually save Medicare, because without significant reform, Medicare's cost will grow to an unsustainable level. Therefore, I think that if House and Senate progressives would start calling their proposed bill "The Medicare Preservation Act," a lot of the misinformed protest would be cut off. And further, Congress people would be able to say, with straight faces, that they heard the message from the town hall meetings loud and clear, and that their number one priority is now to "save" Medicare. I hope some progressive pol somewhere reads this.

Oh, let me add that even if there's a big furor now from the Death Panel believers, I think the furor from people who saw Michael Moore's Sicko was even bigger. We'll get our universal health care if we have to drag people kicking and screaming to the reality that smarter people are allowed to have something the dumber ones don't even want to understand.

Here's another satisfied Canadian. There certainly is a lot of misinformation about our system among Americans, but the bottom line is that no Canadian will ever be denied healthcare no matter their income or "pre-existing conditions". I personally have not had any issues with wait times, although I know that has been an issue for some Canadians. But I would rather have guaranteed coverage for all with a little extra wait time than worry constantly about getting sick and whether I can pay to stay alive.

Quote:
"You people are so naive!!
First of all,socialized medicine in Canada is NOT working and the government is considering returning to private care!We have been warned about the consequences of socialized medicine by Canadians and people from the UK!"
- keefir1

Seriously, have you actually talked to a single person from Canada? I don't know a great deal about the politics of universal health care, but anyone who has had a sick relative or has been sick themself can see the benefits of having this system in Canada. Isn't having a fatal illness bad enough without worrying that you may not be able to afford treatment for it? I'm 18 and the most ignorant of my friends is still not ignorant enough to question that.
The system is going to have faults, I'm not saying it doesn't, but I really hate it when people sign "Canadians" and then quote an untruth.

- A Tommy Douglas Fan

If I may be redundant, I am a Canadian with a close family member who has required ongoing treatment from the Canadian Health Care system for ten years. The treatment we have received has been nothing less than impeccable.

Michael G, your Father is right in identifying TORT abuses as one of the leading drivers of the spiraling costs of medical care in this country. TORT reform has been systematically apposed by the left in this country under the guise that this would allow doctors and hospitals to practice shoddy medicine. The underlying truth is more likely closer to the fact that they want the solution to include a single (governmental) payer system. You may rest assured that once this has been accomplished, these same individuals will be calling for TORT reform to bring down the costs.

Most people mistakingly identify the cost of liability insurance for doctors and hospitals as being the main cost of frivelous lawsuits and eccessive punitive damages imposed by courts. The truth of the matter is, that these are simply the tip of the iceburg. The true costs of TORTs remaining as thy are, is that doctors now go way overboard in running tests, prescribing drugs, and over diagnosing conditions. This is because if they do not run every test known to mankind when you go in complaining of a headache, they will be sued and posssibly ruined on the off chance that you are suffering from a major condition.

In years past if you went to the Doctor's office complaining of a headache, they would tell you to take two Asparins and call them in the morning if you haven't improved. The cost? about $50 and 2 cents (for the Asperin). Now they run blood tests, MRIs, CAT scans and send you to neuro-specialists. Only after they have ruled out every condition known to mankind, do they prescribe the two Asperins. Total cost? $50,000 and 2 cents!

I watch many movies because you recommend them. Of those, The Barbarian Invasions seems most apropos to this debate. Perhaps the clearest picture of the Canadian Health System and a fantastic movie to boot. Remember the son has it recommended to him that the father be sent off to America. Anyway, surprised you didn't mention it.

As for the debate, everyone has an opinion. Married to an ER doctor, I am against Obama's plan. Most doctors we know are against it. Why? It looks good on paper. It really does. But it doesn't play out in a clinical setting. Especially not in an ER. Don't listen to what the head of the AMA tells about the success of the plan. He hasn't practiced clinical medicine in decades. None of them have.

But the system is broken. We heartily agree. However, it's been my wife's experience that the problem isn't so much with Doctor's or insurance companies, it's with the patients. The ones who come into the ER for a "spider-bite". The one's who asked to be admitted for a "spider-bite" because they don't want to pay the co-pay for the medicine when they can be admitted, get the medicine in the hospital and then check-out, leaving insurance companies to foot the thousand plus bill the patient will then never be forced to pay. And then insurance companies raise premiums for all of us. Why? Because doctors can't refuse care. It's a noble profession. They do much good. But their strength is their weakness. And we take advantage of it. There's also CYA medicine that's weighing down the system. After all, what do you call a med student who graduates at the bottom of their class? Yup. A doctor.

It needs to be fixed. It really does. But Obama's plan will do much worse. Palin exaggerates for effect. But then again they all do.

A beautifully written and passionate piece. I hope it is widely read. Thank you for it, Mr. Ebert.

I think it's telling that all the right-wingers posting in this thread are belligerent lying (demonstrably lying) jerks.

You people are the laughing stock of the world. You're who's been used to ruin our country so a relatively few people even worse than yourselves could make some money. Pat yourselves on the back.

Roger--love your Blog and your reviews for years. And I agree with you that rhetoric like the terms "Death Panels" do not contribute positively to the health care debate.

But I must VEHEMENTLY disagree with your following statement

"It is opposed mostly from the far right, whose enthusiasm seems to be encouraged by financial support from some (not all) insurance companies......Their agenda is not health care, but opposition to the Obama administration. It takes the form of demonizing Obama."

Sorry Roger, but this comment is simply off the mark. There may be people for who this applies, but you cannot generalize this way. I am a 37 year old middle class American, who is fairly close to the middle politically. I have a special needs son who could potentially face many years of surgeries and therapies just to maintian a healthy-but-very-disabled and delayed existence. I love him more than life itself.

I do not oppose Obama. I wish nothing more than for him to turn our country around and make it flourish. BUT, I want doctors that are motivated to provide the BEST value and develop the BEST procedures. I want a doctor that knows if he does better than the guy next to him, he will get paid more. I want the best care, and I am willing to pay for it. I do not believe a single payer plan accomodates this idea.

I like the concept of a public option, but NOT a single payer system. That is a very important distinction you did not make in your article. I hear plenty of talk that a public option does not lead to a single payer system, but I've seen plenty of other politicians from the left come out and bluntly say that it will--that a single payer system is the whole point.

And lastly, my anger is NOT fueled by people who disagree with Obama's healthcare system and oppose him at every turn. I disagree with Obama's healthcare plan because I do not think it is the best way to protect and shelter my own family. It has nothing to do with my opinion of Obama.

I am certain that I am not alone in this view.

For what its worth, Roger. Sorry to rant.

Rob

Umm, yes, universal healthcare IS by definition socialist. Society (taxpayer) shares the costs and risk. How you can say it isn't is either through ignorance or disingenuity.

I'm against this centralized plan. I'm not going over the arguments again. You've got them on tape.

All I want to say is that universal healthcare means giving money to the government to do what the vast majority of us can already do for ourselves. We'll give the monsters food, and they'll give us little pieces to eat out of their hands.

Just about all of the people I know came to the US or their ancestors came to the US because they'd been forced into and out of religions, their lands, their means of survival, and they learned a lesson: do not take anything from entitled people. We don't take charity.

I believe in our ability to reform the worst of the best and not hope for the best of the worst.

And what would you do when your universal healthcare/Democratic government is out and a Republican is elected? Can't stand the thought? Now you know how others feel.

Ebert: Try to find a single elected Republican who would vote against Medicare and your argument might scare me.

And talking about expenditure: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-billion-dollar-gram/

How can I get a job on one of the death panels? I imagine that the pay is pretty good and the I would get full health benefits.

Mr. Ebert—

Thank you for this post.

I think the fundamental problem is that insurance companies present an obvious contradiction: from the perspective of customers, their job is to make sure medical care is paid for; from the perspective of insurers, it's to pay out as little as possible for health care (hence the infamous euphemism "medical losses").

Perhaps we should resuscitate the idea of "windfall taxes" suggested for the energy companies: an insurance company must hand over, say, 90 percent of all profits exceeding, say, 3 percent of gross revenues. Any taxes thereby collected will be used strictly for expanding access to, or paying for, health care.

[By the way. . . . to use an argument from the movies, it seems as if Ms. Palin is expecting a government-run health care to turn into something out of Logan's Run, and its "fiery ritual of Carousel." Setting aside for the moment that Carousel seems to be more in keeping with the Republican side of the argument, I've also wondered how exactly Carousel was supposed to lead to rebirth. . . .]

I'd like to address a comment to Scott N. who complained about his family not receiving the BEST care under Obama's plan. I really think you need to go back and take a look at how the system works.

The public option doesn't not prevent you getting the BEST care, thats not what the system is about, if you want the best possible medical care for your family you're still perfectly able to go out and pay for it yourself or else get private health insurance. Those are your rights and nobody is going to take them away from you.

What the Public option is about is providing a degree of care for those who would otherwise be unable to afford any medical treatment and to provide support for those who are either unable to pay for medical insurance or have been marked as an unprofitable client by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions or other complications.

Nothing in Obama's plan is going to stop your family from getting the best possible health care, your argument is entire groundless. Please try and understand the issue before taking a stand on it. Just because your post is more eloquent doesn't stop it from being the more polite form of the man at the town hall shouting "DEATH PANELS!"

Dear Roger-

The debate on health care or insurance reform is a complicated one and I am discomforted by the thought that you feel the solutions are simple.

Firstly, there is no Obama plan. There is a house plan and a senate plan. Let us not give credit or blame to the president for a plan that does not exist.

Secondly, the house passed a bill/plan without reading it in its entirety, without giving the option for people of this country to provide their two cents.

The debates that have turned into a deafening din of disagreement arose from the fact that the elected members of both parties seem to be disinterested in what the people want or atleast give the people the opportunity to contribute in a solution.

Health care should not be a privilege, it must be a right. However, to advocate that the only solutions are those that are on the table now is naive to say the least. Each country had demographics, lifestyle choices, and density of population differences that dictate distinct solutions. To dictate the US to follow Canada, Britain, Switzerland, or Australia is not the solution.

As an executive in the auto industry, when there is a problem that has persisted for a lengthy time period arises, we bring together the best minds having different points of view, debate the pros and cons of each solution, weigh them against the outcome we expect prior to proposing and implementing a solution.

I do not believe that the self serving politicians at the pulpit (left and right) have even tried to bring the best minds together, let alone debate. The arrogance that is displayed in developing these solutions is astounding.

I do not wish for debates to get out of hand. However, the politicians need to recognize that this is a complex problem that requires a public debate and forum to develop the right solution, with the best minds involved to achieve true health care reform.

Let's stop discussing the merits of other systems. Let's start developing a solution that no one has, but will be the best in the world.

It is time for leaders to show leadership (not follow).

This is a point that has me completely baffled.

Living in the UK where we have a Nationalised Health Service, I cannot imagine why everyone in the US is so opposed to it. I have a friend who lives in America and he is dead against it.. Not trusting the government to care for him.

I've heard American politicians slam the NHS, saying that people get treated badly and have to wait weeks for treatment.

Absolute Bull.

I do not understand the level of paranoia the American people have over it. "I don't trust the government to treat me". Well unless Obama is nifty with a scalpel I am pretty sure it will be the same Surgeons, Doctors and Nurses that will be taking care of you.

No longer will your policy 'not cover you' for something. There is nothing to cover. If you're ill, you get treated, whether you're Hugh Hefner or Homeless Harry.

Of course, you can still pay for private treatment. In the UK we have private hospitals that you can throw your money at. If you're too good to lie on a bed next to 'that smelly man' or whatever your prejudice... go for it.

But for everyone else. Those people who cannot insurance... Free, unbiased treatment is a sensible option.

Roger, you are the first American I have actually heard that hasn't slammed the idea..

You prove to be more insightful each time I visit your site.

Just realized that I signed my other comment by my blog post name (Literary Dreamer). My actual name is in my profile, but just to avoid confusion, I thought I'd clear that up.

I would like to comment on Gregory's comment (and not just because he has the same name as me). He writes, "The reason why prices are so high are because of government regulations and the government getting into it in the late sixties. HMOs helped raise the costs and the lobbies by the pharmaceuticals for the government are in part with that...If people were in control of their own health care they have more options being in control of the market rather than the companies themselves. If they don't like their insurance company they can switch to another. Not everyone wants the same health care. Everyone has their own preferences. That is why competition is successful because the company are dependent on the consumer. If they are screwing up the consumer chooses to leave them."

Here's my question: if all insurance companies can make more money by not catering to people with pre-existing conditions or who have grave and costly illnesses (cancer, AIDS, diabetes, etc.), then how will people with pre-existing conditions or costly illnesses get insurance? The free market is based around making money, and since the majority of the people in the U.S. with the most money (middle-class, upper middle class) tends to be young and healthy, the insurance companies can make much more money by exacting premiums on these young and healthy individuals to the exclusion of people who actually need the care.

Oh, and the free market isn't really free. Let's take airlines. If I want to fly to a large city from my local airport on a certain day, I have a few options to choose from, almost all of which will involve extra charges for checked baggage and possibly charges for airline food, because hey, the market can support these fees, and those formerly free services cost money. Same with health insurance. Maybe, in a free market, a few well-financed insurance companies will still cover certain costly medical procedures, but the majority of them will make more money if they don't provide those services, charge the customer a higher co-pay for them, or provide an alternative treatment based only on cost, not on care.

In a way, national health care is like the Civil Rights Movement and the Civil Rights Act. Only the government can guarantee, on a national level, that discriminatory practices cease (based, in this case, on costs). And it's not like the insurance companies would wither away and die, since the government option would exist alongside the private insurers (providing Obama doesn't cave on the public option--write to your Senators!), but the government's health insurance would be based not just on lowering costs (for patients), but also on COVERING EVERYONE, something that insurance companies only want to see happen now because it means more money (premiums) for them, while they can still discriminate procedure by procedure, based on cost. The government, on the other hand, would only discriminate against a procedure if a more EFFICIENT procedure was available for less.

Yes, we should debate the bill that Congress is working on to make sure that national health care benefits all of us, but shouting down our Senators and Representatives based on something we saw on a blog or overheard on a radio or TV program benefits no one.

And go to the Canadian border and see in which direction people are going for medical help. While you're at it, look at the teeth of almost everyone in Britain. If you have a cold in Europe or Canada, see a doctor. If you are seriously ill, see a travel agent.

Wow. This is what I mean about being misinformed. I guarantee the person who wrote this is not Canadian. I'd love to see all these people who are felling to the US from Canada for health care, because I've never met one of them. I have, on the other hand, met an enormous amount of people who are afraid to travel in the US for fear that they might get sick or break a bone or something.

It's not the treatment or quality of care or abilites of the doctors in the US that are in question here, but the system. And let me tell you, the view from up here is pretty scary. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be hospitialized in the United States.

This is not to say that there aren't some Canadians who go to the US for access to quicker care or fancier technologies. We have rich people here too who don't mind jumping to the front of the line if they can afford to. But this idea that Canadians flock to the US for treatment, or are unhappy with their own system, or can't get good treatment here is just plain wrong.

The other night I was watching Geraldo on Fox News (I'm so embarrassed, it was 4AM, I was sick, and I wanted something besides an infomercial). Ann Coulter was on there talking about these so-called Death Panels, and as usual she appalled me. She said that doctors don't need to be reimbursed for counseling about end of life issues: it's just a conversation that will take a few minutes. "Doctors want to be paid for procedures, like xrays, tests, and surgeries."

As a primary care physician, I can say with a great deal of authority that I want to be reimbursed for having proactive conversations with my patients and their families. That's what I'm good at. But I make more money if I freeze a few warts. The system is bass-ackwards, and I welcome some comprehensive reform.

I spent four and a half years visiting a stroke victim before she died. She was in three good facilities as her care needs increased and she got worse. I'm not sure how many other people get this experience.

I'm sure the specifics in every case vary, but the one thing I'm always left with is an exchange between Lenny Briscoe and a doctor in a similar care facility. Lenny asks if they're all like this, and the doctor says, no, this is a GOOD one. Then he says, my advice? Start eating red meat.

People like Palin were the same ones at work in the Schaivo case, believing in an immortal consciousness until God takes your body, or exploiting a belief in the same. The first is irrational, the second is reptilian.

All politics aside, I'm just glad you're alive. I had no idea you were that close to the other side.

Re: Gary Robbins @ August 17, 2009 8:00 PM

(With apologies for the length of this comment, and thanks to Roger for writing on this issue.)

“Republicans have suggested a number of market-based proposals. Why shouldn't we try them?”

Paul Krugman has an article which you can find on his blog, explaining why health insurance does not work on a market basis – or rather, that it does work, but to the benefit of insurance company profits, not health results. (How many people on health insurance do you know who actually shop around for the cheapest cancer treatment?)

Republicans are welcome to offer ideas (the clause that was twisted into the “Death Camp” meme was actually offered by a Republican), but many have said they will oppose any actual bill, regardless of whether the ideas are good or bad, so as not to give the Democrats (and the nation) a victory.

“Why shouldn't Subchapter S corporations be allowed to pay for health insurance premiums of their employees with pre-FICA and pre-tax money, just as other companies do? Or, in the alternative, why shouldn't the Government tax all health care benefits of all employees, with a large tax credit, and subsidy to cover low-income individuals?”

I believe these proposals are available to be negotiated with Republicans, but only if they actually will vote for the negotiated bill. Charles Grassley specifically said on the last Sunday News shows that he will not guarantee to do so even if he personally agrees with all the negotiated provisions.

“At a minimum, why don't we support employees knowing how much their employer is paying for health insurance premiums?”

I am not sure where this is coming from. Are you saying that an employee can not ask their employer how much they are paying for health insurance? At GE, this information is provided by the company, and made especially clear during union contract negotiations.

“The Republicans passed the prescription medication portion of Medicare, and I understand that this is the one portion of Medicare that is not losing money. And I understand that this portion of Medicare is market-based.”

I don’t, because in the markets I am familiar with, providers are allowed to evaluate bids from multiple suppliers and chose the cheapest one which meets their needs, but this was specifically prohibited for Medicare prescription costs by the Republicans.

“Instead of changing 17% of the economy of this country, why shouldn't Congress simply allow the citizens of every state to buy health insurance regulated by any other state? At a minimum, shouldn't we at least try this limited reform before changing 17% of the economy?”

I was not aware that health insurance companies made up 17% of our economy. If so, all the more reason to eliminate this unnecessary and expensive middleman. The largest downtown building in Schenectady is owned and filled by a health insurance company. Five floors of large square footage, filled with people who are not doctors or nurses, whose salaries must be paid before the company makes a profit, which it does. It is staggering to think how much a non-profit insurance system, organized around a principle of best medical practices rather than finding ways to deny claims, could save the country. (See the Mayo Clinic and Kaiser for examples, if you are not willing to look abroad.)

“What about undocumented workers/illegal aliens? How much of the proposed programs would be providing health care to individuals who are not legally in this country? Is there majority support among Americans for extending health insurance to undocumented workers/illegal aliens?”

Why not first google to find out the costs? In ten minutes you can find and read a 2004 study by Kaiser on unreimbursed health care costs, to find that it is about 2.7 cents out of each health care dollar. In 2004 there were about 44 million uninsured Americans and about 11 million illegal aliens, so about 0.5 cents of each health care dollar are spent on the latter, assuming they take their sick children to emergency rooms as often as uninsured Americans do, which I doubt. Is it worth turning away sick children of illegal immigrants to save 0.5% of health costs? I say no. If it was 50% I would reluctantly say yes.

“All hospitals must already provide emergency room care under a 1986 federal law. Don't we, in fact, have national health care, albeit much less expansive than any of the proposed programs?”

Yes, and it is about the worst possible system except for none at all. It turns preventable conditions into emergency conditions, and fails to treat the worst conditions, such as cancer. As John MacEnroe would say, you can’t be serious!

”Shouldn't Congress seek agreement of at least a majority of both parties before enacting a comprehensive act?”

No, because the Republicans have made it clear they will not support anything which gives President Obama a victory, regardless of whether it is good or bad for the country. President Obama made public all of his proposals for reforming U.S. health insurance early in his election campaign. He has tried to be bipartisan
and include Republican ideas in the process, and been told by Republicans that they will make health insurance reform his "Waterloo" in return.

It is nice that a multi millionaire writer who has medical insurance with a private carrier and access to medical care in some of the best hospitals in the world would think that a socialist program will work. The real test is whether Mr. Ebert will abandon his current medical care and "get in line" behind everyone else when he needs medical care by taking the so called "public option". When Mr. Ebert, the President, and all members of Congress abandon their private coverage I will support them.

Ebert: I had insurance, like most people, through my work. It is now exhausted, having reached the limit. We spent a lot of our own money; you can't really afford to be critically ill. Because of my condition, I do not qualify for any insurance at all. Now I am enjoying the public option. It is called "Medicare." Without it, I would be up the proverbial creek.

Forty million Americans cannot afford or do not qualify for health insurance. Do you have any sympathy for them? I would appreciate your answer to my question.

Roger, Rod Serling used the "death panel" for an episode of his "Twilight Zone" with Burgess Meridith playing the role of a librarian who was deemed obsolete by a panel and was set to die. Meridith filibustered his way into living and proving the death panel was in itself obsolete. And this was shown on TV in the late 1950s.

I have a whacko who forwards thoughtless e-mails to my 74 year old Dad. He forwards them to me, and I go and do some basic fact checking. They are getting sillier everytime. Every single one of them is full of lies and expects the readers to accept them as fact. Any sources that are cited are wrong. One even claimed to be supported by snopes.com, which it wasn't.
The last one pushed me over the edge. It discussed Natashe Richardson's skiing accident and subsequent death. The e-mail claimed that after she hit her head the Canadians refused to send a helicopter, which would have had her at the local Canadian hospital within thirty minutes. Instead, an ambulance was dispatched and she dies on the way.
As I am not a follower of celebrity news I had to some research. A couple of news articles later, I had the truth. Natasha had hurt herself badly but had shown no signs of injury. After retreating to her hotel room she became ill. Within fifteen minutes a Canadian ambulance had her in a Canadian hospital. Although the news articles didn't articulate the reason for her departure to a NYC hospital, it was mentioned that the family had a home there which I assuem would be the reason they transferred her. She passed away while in NY.
It is rather digusting that opponents to a program create lies and spin stories to support their opposition. Why not use facts and cite sources? I've seen college professors quoted in e-mails. A quick check on the internet and a click to their college profile reveals a disclaimer stating they made no such quote. Why do people fall for this? Is it laziness? Are we easily duped? Sometimes I am embarrassed by my country, patriotic as I am.

"And go to the Canadian border and see in which direction people are going for medical help. While you're at it, look at the teeth of almost everyone in Britain. If you have a cold in Europe or Canada, see a doctor. If you are seriously ill, see a travel agent."

I thought Dave Chappelle's presidential campaign pledge was to provide fake Canadian ID cards to Americans in order to recieve cheaper health care...

Here's a portrait of how Canadians experience the health care system at ground level, warts and all.

Emergency: There are very long waits in emergency departments, but the wait is dependent upon the severity of your emergency. Life threatening injuries take priority over lesser emergencies. This has the effect of some self-diagnosis. You ask yourself if your sniffles, ear infection, or apparently sprained wrist is worth a 5 hour wait, or should you call and make an appointment with your GP. If you've fallen off your roof and impaled yourself on a rake, there's no worry that you are going to have to wait 5 hours.
Some doctors have told me that you tend to see certain trends after a while. For instance, Emergency on a Monday morning is blocked solid, because people don't want to waste their weekend in an emergency room, but take the time off work instead. We had reason to bring our son to 'emerg' on Xmas Day 2005, and we waltzed through the place. The hospital was a ghost town.

Family Medicine/General Practice: I can see a GP within 24 hours if required. I live in St. John's Newfoundland, and in some rural parts of Newfoundland, this kind of availability of GP's is not available, so you are often forced to drive an hour or 2 to a larger center, and suffer the long waits in Emergency.
Family doctors tend to be clearing houses for specialists, or for quick turnarounds like antibiotic prescriptions. But in Canada, specialists require referrals from GP's in order to see a patient.

Specialists: In Newfoundland, specialized medicine is particularly stressed. There is some prioritization based upon need, but an appointment to see, say, a dermatologist, could be as long as a year and a half. Vasectomy? Expect a year's wait.
As bad as that sounds (and it is bad), there has arisen an informal by which cancellations and added clinics can expedite this process (particularly true about vasectomies for some reason. Give a man a year to think about a scalpel near his raison d'etre and cancellations flourish). There's some 'squeaky wheel' at work here, and some 'who you know' machinations. Some of the most powerful people in the medical system are the doctor's office administrators. With control of the appointment books, they are critical path.

It's easy to be anecdotal to portray the Canadian system as wonderful or terrible, so I have tried to avoid saying "Well, I find the system wonderful!"(which I have). But: Canada is ranked 8th in life expectancy in the world, to USA's 42nd. Since I think it's safe to say that Canadian culture/lifestyle/geography/society is the closest to the USA's, what can one infer about our health system except: it's better.

Roger:

Thanks for your thoughtful and personal essay. With all the talk in the comments here about the Canadian system, I thought it would be good to share Paul Krugman's piece The Swiss Menace in Sunday's NYT about health care systems abroad. His assertion: our proposed reform is far more like the Swiss system (which works quite well, thank you) than either the Canadian or British sytems, which are also working fine.

First we had the "death tax".

Now we have "death panels".

The Republicans seem to have learned that to argue against something they don't like, they just need to yell "Death ...".

I've been a banker for 25 years. People aren't too happy with me now, and I'm not as proud of my job as I used to be. So I'd like to think about a second career. The thing that is stopping me is health care for me and my family. It seems sad that career decisions have to be made based on whether or not one can get adequate medical coverage. I think that our society loses a lot because of our medical insurance system, and things are only going to get worse.

Just thought I'd add my opinion to the debate over Canadian health care. I'm an American living in Canada. I like the Canadian health care system better.

The scope of my Canadian knowledge is limited to Toronto and Vancouver, but the Canadians I know are in much better physical shape than the Americans I know.

I will add, however, that despite the common stereotypes, I find Americans to be much friendlier.

I.O.U.S.A. sorry if this point has been addressed before. Roger as usual an intelligent impassioned cry for reason. Our health care is broken this is a fact. I would ,however, hope that we start the reform with small measures as opposed to the current expansion of Medicare idea which will completely bankrupt America before I have a chance to use it.

Mobs shouting down reasoned discussions is pointless and stupid. But so is ignoring the pink elephant in the room that is our soon to be crippling national debt.

Wow, there are a lot of Canadians here. I'm surprised. I wonder how many comments you would get if you changed the title of the post entry to "Death Panels and Whether the Phoenix Coyotes will move to Hamilton."

Incidentally, there are plenty of health care horror stories up here in Canada. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that there are probably a couple health care horror stories in the US system too. It doesn't necessarily mean the system doesn't work, just that there's room for improvement.

Roger, What have you done to me? I read your blog frequently, and now I have spent a good part of the morning captivated by the variety of insights you provoked. Again and again, I see why your blog is worth returning to! But, could you have some way of getting my work done at the same time?

Now, you've again given me pause and actually provoked me to offer a thought, feeble though it be. I have lived and worked in Rome for 9 of the past 15 years, and I must confess to admiring their "social skills." Because my job involves immigration (I work for an International religious Order whose members, from all over the world, come to study at the Roman universities), I am continually struck by the government's "good sense," in controlling the cost of pharmaceuticals and in offering health care for all, though many have private insurance to "back them up." A small anecdote: a woman with MS had come to Rome for a pilgrimage, and, having forgotten her medication, asked me to help her. I went to a pharmacy and, having the name of her medication ready, was told that it would cost EUR 20 for a 15 day supply (about $25). When I gave her the medicine, she asked, "Can we go to ANOTHER pharmacy too?" In the US, a 15 day supply would have cost her over $200. She was ready and willing to lie to another pharmacist to get more!

I guess what I want to offer to this wide spectrum of a debate is that there once were regulatory agencies established precisely to make essential things NOT available for the "open market" of supply and demand. "How much is it WORTH to you?" should never be applied to the essentials of human health and shelter. That's why utilities were regulated ("how much is heat worth to you?" "how much is electricity worth to you?" "how much is gasoline worth to you?"). Alas, medical regulation, when left to the "market economy" asks the same question and, unfairly so: "how much is your life worth to you?" It should at LEAST be worth the concern of us all! No one should have to run a lottery or have benefit dinners just to pay for their medical care. How much is it worth to have your Parkinson's medication? How much is it worth to you to maintain your insulin levels (no diabetic pays ANYthing for their care in the Italian system)? Shame on a government that doesn't protect its citizens from the greed of the open market that rapes its victims with outlandish profit-mongering only to supply notepads to doctors (and that, alas, is the least of their marketing expenses!).

People can make fun of Italy all they want, but they won't find many Italians who envy the US system!

Thanks, Roger, for your voice which keeps me sane on many a weekday. At least I know that people are trying honestly to sort through all of this.

In response to Kentucky Packrat:

Your post is very thoughtful and non-hostile, which is refreshing to see, and your points are well-made. However, I have a comment and a question in response:
1. You are correct with regard to the methods of reducing cost, but that only applies to ventures where the goal is to make a profit. A government-sponsored or -funded health insurance option would not be designed with profit structure in mind. The government does not make a profit on highways, police, schools, etc. Therefore, your suggests don't seem applicable. If you addressed this in your post and I missed it, then I apologize.
2. You end the post by saying we should push the spending decisions back on consumers. However, when you are faced with a choice between paying exorbitantly high medical bills which you may or may not be able to afford and your own death, is there really a choice involved? Is it really an option to simply not patronize the services if you can't afford them?

A lot of what I want to say has been said already--so I'll try to be brief.

The problem is capitalism. It's intrinsically immoral--well, a-moral: "right" and "wrong" mean nothing to the capitalist. That's why we think of costs and markets when we discuss health care. It is a language we see as "natural"--like that "natural tendency" to profit at others' expense. But "human nature" is complex, allowing for selflessness as well as selfishness. The former urges us to offer free health care to everyone; the latter convinces us to see ourselves as "consumers."

It's telling that the images you chose for this are from Dreyer's Joan of Arc film. He asks us not to consider anything but the human faces in the story--devoid of politics, of "religion." It is a genuine morality, one that demands we see them as themselves--and that we see ourselves in them, Joan as well as her judges. Until we abandon the lies of capitalism, we will not see each others' faces--we won't even have faces ourselves.

p.s. Like another commenter, I too teared up as you described your brush with death. You really must stop insisting we feel deeply about the plight of others, to see them in ourselves, ourselves in them. Next thing you know, our interests will no longer be self-interests, and where's the profit in that?

I am an American who often travels overseas for work. Because of this, I spend a lot of in-between time in America without health care insurance. This week, I fell off my bike and smashed my jaw into the pavement. The first thing I did was call my mother nearby, and tell her that I was afraid to look in a mirror. The second thing I did was worry about the cost of fixing my face, and checking for inner damage.

The day after my accident, after complaining about head vibrations when bending down, my brother asked me if I'd gone to the hospital. "No insurance." His reply: "I don't have it either. You don't need it. Go to the university hospital. I just had a full exam, cat scans, everything, for $25." "Are they gonna send you a bill later?" "Nope. $25."

Well, I'm better, but I still live in worry over what-ifs (accidents, cancer...)

Despite having uninsured children, my parents are opposed to universal health care. They were opposed to the idea before Obama came into office, and I suspect that they are even more opposed to it now. I am completely for it (duh.)

I know that the Canadians here are happy with their health care, but a couple of comments pointed toward the time factor negative, which is one argument I always hear when I argue that Canada has it right.

"If I needed knee surgery, on the other hand, I might have to wait a few months. An uncomfortable few months, no doubt, but a small price to pay for free health care."

"I had my gallbladder out back in 1995... I had to wait 4 weeks for the actual operation, but the only thing I had to pay for was the Tylenol 222."

So, let's get universal health care with no wait time in this country.

Hey Rog,

Here are a few more examples of my horrible 'fact-checking' skills:

Globe And Mail - ""we can't just sit back and smugly say we have the best health system in the world while our system is crumbling around us,” Dr. Doig said."

and

"“We went through a period of throwing more money at the system, we went through another period of pulling people out of the system to save money. Now, we have to get back to basics: We have to focus on quality,” she said."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/we-have-to-improve-patient-care-period/article1253871/

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News - "Doig doesn't hesitate to say patients are getting less than optimal care in Canada."

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/08/17/cma-doig.html

National Post British Columbia - "The incoming president, Anne Doig of Saskatoon, who will be installed this week, says our health-care system is "imploding."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1902983

Dr Doig will be a rich woman when she gets through suing all these news organizations!

Mr. Ebert,
You have been my favorite film critic for several decades now. A Roger Ebert review has long been all the information I need when deciding which movie to see.

You have just become my favorite social/political/cultural/editorial writer/commenter/blogger as well. Love, love, love this column. And I love you as well.

What is with this bizarre insistence on looking at Canadian or UK models when discussing universal health care? Do people think those are the only countries that have it? Why not look at Australia or Finland or someplace that actually has a decent model with incredibly high satisfaction rates? Why not make an even BETTER system than these? We're America, after all; we should be #1 on the health care model charts. Europe, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, and the rest of the entire civilized world have been experimenting with universal health care for decades. Let's study ALL of their models, find what works, ditch what doesn't! Am I the only one with any goddamn sense here?
As for the "public option will have to be subsidized by taxpayers" argument, or the "government will push out private insurers" line, it seems a bit petty --actually perverse-- to be making such arguments when over 60 people unable to afford life-saving treatments have just died since this blog entry first posted.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411588_uninsured_dying.pdf

One wonders if all those Republicans and Conservatives who are now freaking out about death panels were similarly alarmed when Republicans and Conservatives stepped into the personal lives of Terri and Michael Schiavo, using the Court (and the President!) to determine issues of life and death, and medical care, putting that family through a living hell, all based on a "right to life" agenda that wasn't (then) opposed to government intervention in that family's life.

This is all a political charade, and it's going to affect people's lives.

Sadly, the side that wants to obstruct seems more motivated to fight than the side that wants reform.

I have to think that some considerable part of the resistance to a public option stems from what we have heard from the right since the first days of the Reagan presidency--now almost 30 years ago--namely, that government is inefficient, incompetent, and incapable. The drumbeat from the far right has long been that the private sector is better at everything than is government, and now it comes down to the notion that only a fool would trust his health to a bureaucracy.

I note that many who oppose health care reform seem to be of the opinion that simply imposing "tort reform" will lower costs. I beg to differ. As a resident of Texas and an attorney working in the health care liability area (disclosure: I represent doctors and hospitals), I have seen the results of our state's "tort reform" up close. After intense lobbying from insurance interests, the state put caps on damages awards and made prosecuting a malpractice action much more difficult with additional procedural hurdles that can delay or permanently derail a claim. All this was done in the name of stamping out "frivolous lawsuits." But the problem with caps is that they don't affect frivolous lawsuits. Those don't make it to trial. Caps affect the meritorious ones. Likewise, huge procedural hurdles affect all suits, those with merit and those without. And despite all the legislation, premiums for malpractice insurance have barely moved. I've personally spoken with several physicians about this, and all expressed frustration that their premiums are as high as ever. The insurance companies are the only ones who have benefitted.

While you're at it, look at the teeth of almost everyone in Britain.

The most ill informed comment I have read. This smacks of someone who doesn't even own a passport. What is it with this teeth thing? I live in the UK and know of nobody with bad teeth at all (except a few tramps).

I have no idea where you get this stereotype.. If it's from TV, then firstly... Just to spoil the illusion, we don't all live in castles, we're not all foppish like Hugh Grant, and (here's the kicker) we pay for dental treatment... So read up, because to 90% of the world you come across as an idiot.

On the same note, I see plenty of films depicting American's with bad teeth. In fact, if movies are to be believed, if you live anywhere considered south, you have bad teeth, a very basic grasp of the English language and probably are the product of an illicit liaison.

But I am smart enough to figure out the difference between fact and fiction.

More and more these days I am thinking we -- the U.S. -- deserve to be a suject nation. If we provide health coverage for all who require it, what business do we have running our own affairs.

Hey Rog,

You really got me goin here lookin at Canadian health care.

This one doesnt involve Dr Doig, but it was such a ringing endorsement of Canada Care I couldn't resist:

Vancouver Sun - Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver, leaked paper reveals

"a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.........

....According to the leaked document, Vancouver Coastal — which oversees the budget for Vancouver General and St. Paul’s hospitals, among other health-care facilities — is looking to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting in September and to cut 6,250 surgeries, including 24 per cent of cases scheduled from September to March and 10 per cent of all medically necessary elective procedures this fiscal year.

The plan proposes cutbacks to neurosurgery, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, and 11 other specialized areas.

As many of 112 full-time jobs — including 13 anesthesiologist positions — would be affected by the reductions, the document says.

“Clearly this will impact the capacity of the health-care system to provide care, not just now but in the future,” Dix said.

Further reductions in surgeries are scheduled during the Olympics, when the health authority plans to close approximately a third of its operating rooms.

Two weeks ago, Dix released a Fraser Health Authority draft communications plan listing proposed clinical care cuts, including a 10-per-cent cut in elective surgeries and longer waits for MRI scans."

I am so glad you finally wrote an entry on the health care debate in this country, if only so that I could be reassured by your comments that there are sane people left in this country. Before this, the lack of debate in this country pushed me to the edge of learning Swedish. (Cue the requisite “Enjoy your socialism, we won’t miss you” comments … now.)

One thing that surprises me about this whole debate is that nobody in favor of the proposed reforms has mentioned the example set by another country which implements a system very similar to the one we are proposing: Japan. (On a side note, why is this country never mentioned to us? It is such an amazing little island – barely the size of California, few natural resources – or at least, nowhere near as many as in the United States - to speak of, massive overcrowding, and yet the world’s second largest economy, with an unemployment rate of less than 5% even now. It is also the birthplace of some of our most beloved and/or controversial filmmakers – Ozu, Miyazaki, and/or Miike - to boot.)

Japan has a hybridized system of health insurance. There are over 2,000 private insurers in Japan; 30% of the population is covered by the government-sponsored plan, (40% if you include plans for government employees – this includes teachers, not just politicians) and if my numbers are correct, most of the rest are covered by private plans known as “health insurance societies” or a derivative thereof – suffice it to say that the plans are mostly run by private corporations. I’m not going to go into detail about how effective their system is (there are problems in every system of health care, whether public or private, and it is morally and intellectually dishonest to go hunting for a few bad experiences, blow them out of proportion, force them down our throats, and say “see how bad this country’s health care system is?”) nor how much the populace approve of it (in Japan, it is sometimes difficult to extract an accurate public approval poll from the population) but instead, I am going to make my argument in favor of adopting a system which resembles Japan’s in the following way: There is not currently a health care crisis in Japan.

In fact, you hear very little about Japan’s health care system, which is a very good thing for them - the best government system is one whose presence you do not notice, only its absence. There are some issues with patient rejection in Japan, which stem from two problems which the U.S. would not experience: Overcrowding and a rapidly aging population. The issues with patient rejection are usually on a hospital level – often times when this occurs the hospital simply does not have enough beds. It is a demographic problem, much like the absence of quality cross-country public transit in the U.S. is a demographic problem. We're simply too large (geographically), they're simply too crowded.

But in spite of this, the Japanese population is one of the healthiest in the world. Something can be said of their diet and lifestyle, yes, but lifestyle cannot prevent many of the diseases which kill our population – only hospitals can do that.
So I ask again, why has nobody mentioned Japan in this debate?

If you’re curious, these are my sources:

A marvelous paper written at NYU

The requisite Wikipedia citation

Americans appear to have a collective hangover from McCarthyism and the Cold War that they see the word 'socialist' as evil without really ever asking 'why'. You know the bunch of recent bailouts that the US government has handed out to banks and car dealerships, etc.? Socialist. Unemployment insurance? Socialist. Cash for clunkers? S word...

Mr. Ebert,

Thank you for your thoughtful, insightful, educated, and humble piece of writing. As a human being, an American, a physician, and as a patient, I fully appreciate this journal entry.

I wish you the best in your health battles, and I admire your courage.

Keep writing,

S. Thomas

Well, if short pithy statements win out over long boring diatribes, then show us some pithy statements that will win the day for Health Care reform! "Death Panel" as bad as it sounds is exactly the potential for any GOVERNMENT run system. I don't know about Canada or Great Britain, or France or Germany, but I know about America, and I don't like anything social in nature. I am free in America, and the REST of the world don't understand our freedom. They think we should lighten up and live a little, take that drink of socialism, it will be ok. Not me! I will not drink I will not smoke, I will not listen to those temptors that want my control. The Last Lone American who is free.

Excellent post Mr. Ebert. It does seem likely that special interests are fanning the flames of the health care protests. However the desire to fan the flames is trickling down to others. About a dozen people openly toted firearms (in one case an assault rifle) at the recent Obama town hall meeting in Arizona. I doubt 99.99% of these people actually intend to cause harm to anyone but they aren't exactly trying to make people feel comfortable. They wear guns to get attention and to stir up emotions in those around them. The original gun toter at Obama's earlier town hall also carried a sign saying that it was "time to water the tree of liberty". The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of tyrants of course. Because they disagree with Obama, many people have all too easily allowed themselves to believe (because they desperately want to feel justified) that the President is some despot bent on a totalitarian dictatorship. One begins to wonder if a reasoned discussion with such people is even possible. A lot of Americans have revealed their true nature in this debate and it is disturbing.

We need a President who will cut the Gordian knot of Atwater tactics from the right by going on TV and calling them out. For once, I agree with those who say that Obama should adopt at least one particular strategy of the right: when attacked for using strong language, Obama should double down and use even stronger language.

The Republicans accuse Democrats and liberals of wanting to DESTROY AMERICA on *every* issue. That's no exaggeration. On abortion, gay marriage, climate change, healthcare, the economy -- their attacks are always "Hey, these plans the Democrats have are actually going to take away your freedoms and destroy this country!" That's evil. They should be accused of hatemongering -- and when they attempt to reframe it, as they always do, as "liberals not being in favor of free speech" or "the president should apologize for insulting small-town folk", the President should go at them harder, accusing them of serial dishonesty and of misleading and scaring the American people for 50 years.

Anyone know where we can get a President like that?

I am in my last week here in South Korea, and only in the last month or so have I discovered that South Korea has full health coverage for all citizens. I realize I was naive, but it just seemed improbable that a country as small and pro-capitalist as South Korea could have "socialized medicine" and yet, sure enough, the coverage of the average citizen here is full and fantastic, so far as everyone has told me. I find it a cause for deep sorrow and disturbance that a country that still sees it as a necessity to have American troops protecting its borders is able to offer full health coverage to all of its citizens while we cannot.

Ebert: We remain the only developed country in the world without health care.

Thinking about all this last night, I suddenly realized what Glen Beck's rants and the resulting chaos at the Town Hall meetings remind me of.

It's the Two Minute Hate!

I've also got to say, I find it astonishing that so many Americans find it easier to trust corporate entities devoted to providing the least amount of service for the greatest amount of money, than to trust their own elected representatives. I don't know whether that says more about the quality of your democracy or the effectiveness of corporate PR, but I think you guys might have bigger problems than just your appalling health care system.

This whole debate looks utterly weird from the perspective of someone living in a country where near-universal healthcare is an established fact of life. Guess what, right-wingers in the US? Modern-day Germany does have universal healthcare. No, we don't have death panels. No, we're not socialist. And to be frank, the pure malevolence that seems to go into this discussion bewilders me. Gunning for the government is fine and good (the US have freedom of speech), but basing it all on a great big lie is probably not the best way to go. Is there honestly nothing wrong with what the government does propose to do? If you need untruths as a staging ground for attacks, then the premise of the attack might be a tad flawed, no?

All very well here inside the echo chamber. It's clear that only a small, noisy minority oppose the Administration on comprehensive, meaningful reform, and that their opposition is based mainly on misunderstandings ("government takeover") and lies ("death panels").

But the question is: what do the rest of us do about it? A few lawmakers from states with tiny populations like Nebraska and North Dakota have been bought and paid for by the insurance companies, and are in a position to castrate reforms. Sensation-crazed, uncritical media have given many otherwise sensible Americans the impression that there is credible opposition to the reforms.

Colorado is now a blue state, so speaking up to my elected representatives will not help. Rather than more preaching to the choir, we need forums like this one to propose and discuss practical measures that will help the Administration get its agenda -- our agenda -- back on track.

"I am a brain cancer survivor and when I was diagnosed my Canandian doctor advised e that I would have had to wait six months for an MRI in which time I would have died. He also said it would be 5 months before surgery if it was needed. All I know is I have had many MRI's and Dr. appointments in the same day good luck with that with Nationalized Healthcare."

Ebert: It's the rare Canadian who cannot spell "Canadian."

I wonder if that was a typo? Oh well, you really smacked that person down. With people like roger in the debate, we can count on some real discussion. Not like those bad people at fox news.

Here is another look at what the phrase "Death Panels" could mean:

I am a 60 year old man who was born with spina bifida. A child born with it in 1949 had a much lower chance of survival than one born today. However, I'm told that some doctors, after a positive finding result for pre-natal testing for spina-bifida, will encourage the parents to consider terminating the pregnancy. Some parents will, some won't. I can live with that (pardon the pun), but I fear the day will come when that "encouragement" will become a very hard core sell and not from doctors, but from bureaucratic pencil pushers. We all have to face the fact that some form of rationing of health care will happen in the future. With or without legislation, it costs more than most people are willing to pay.

I voted for President Obama, I am for the idea of a public option; but in all the research I've done, I still have no idea how health reform will be paid for. It is my guess that for insurance companies (and I am presuming-perhaps unfairly-a government plan) ethics will, as it always does, take a back seat to dollars.

"By Carlton Barnes on August 17, 2009 6:08 PM
Long-winded column, when "Sarah bad, Barack Good" would have done just as well. Alexander Pope said: "Brevity is the soul of wit." Catch the essence. Sarah knows this."

I hate to 'feed the trolls' but for the sake of everyone else:

"brevity is the soul of wit" is Shakespeare(Hamlet), and in context is said by Polonius at the beginning of a very long speech. Wit not being Polonius' strong suit, it's meant to be ironical.

Catch the essence, Carlton?

I praise you not only for the post's theme but for the imagery chosen. To use images of "The Passion of Joan of Arc" to reference the demonization of Obama is, I'd argue, nearly as brilliant as coining the term "Death Panel" to demonize Universal Healthcare.

Joan's expressive face in the film conveys both her confidence in the righteousness of her actions and her bewilderment of being judged. She's certain of doing the right thing for her people but can't understand why they're all against her. Sound familiar?

I still can't get the image of the blood-drawing scene out of my head. So graphic for its time.

The NY Times published an article last week on the origin of the term "Death Panel." Perhaps you have seen it by now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?_r=1

I apologize to Mary if I'm wrong, but her quote here has me suspicious:

"I've read Ezekiel Emanuel's articles, where he infers that physicians should abandon the Hippocratic oath, and consider that some Americans are more equal than others, that we should be evaluated based on how much merit we are worth.. in very cold, bloodthirsty terms."

Dr. Emanuel has been one of the figures at the center of the phony death panel controversy after out-of-context exerpts of his writings were included in a NY Post column and he has been brought up by both former Gov. Palin and Newt Gingrich. His writings have also been defended by a Time blogger and conservative Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic. They both point out that as a medical ethicist his job is to consider the implications of competing philosophies of care in often extreme hypothetical cases. This does not mean that he endorses or subscribes to the arguments he makes or conclusions he draws.

I have been in various forums debating health care reform and so I tried to read the relevant Emanuel papers to see if I could discern which of his detractors or defenders were correct. What I found was that the original sources are in medical journals that are subscription only, and at most I could only read the abstract.

Now I have no doubt that some professional opinion makers paid or already have access to these journals, but I suspect that Mary does not, or she has only read what the anti-Emanuel propagandists wish her to read.

Obama says again and again that "if you like your current plan you can keep it." fair enough. However, he does not promise that I will continue to be able to afford it, that my employer will continue to pay for a portion of it, that my employer will not drop my current plan to save money, or that my insurance company will not be put out of business by competition with a "free" government plan.

So much for promises....

Ebert: No, he doesn't.

If you're not able to afford it, and your employer won't continue to pay for a portion of it, and that your employer will drop your current plan to save money, then you'll be in the same boat with 40 million other Americans, and the plan might look good to you.

Once again, another Canadian here. I would say the relatively disproportianite amount of us posting here speaks to the kind of passion the health care discussion can generate north of the 49th as well.

As someone born and raised in this country, I have no personal interest in US health care reform. Also, having no experience in it, I am in no position to comment on how well it functions. That being said, what truly perturbs me is the frequency with which Americans seem to have no problem bashing the Canadian system, despite having no experience with it directly (with some exceptions, of course). For instance, when watching an American network I saw that commercial with the woman from Ontario who spoke of the difficulties she had with the Canadian system, and the lengths she had to go to in order to get the necessary treatment in the US. Regardless of how accurate her description of the situation was, the larger issue I have is that this is one potentially failed case amongst many successful ones, and yet it is this one case that is latched onto and held up as the poster case for the certain failure that a national health care system would bring.

While proud of the health care system in this country, I am not so naive as to think it is without its flaws. I saw that first hand when my sister had to wait months to see a specialist for an issue that was of great concern to her. However, I feel that having a system in place with the need for upgrades is better than having none at all. The idea that someone may not receive the medical attention they need because they cannot afford it, is to me a reflection of a society that values its citizens based on the size of their wallets. Whether an individual has 10 homes or none at all, they should all be considered equally deserving of medical attention and treatment.

Mr. Ebert:

For people who claim to champion dissent and debate so much, it seems you hate free speech and passion when it comes to dare criticizing President Obama and a Democrat Congress.

Yes, thousands are wrong: only those wise people among the Dems/Libs/Media know best.

Any time someone dares speak up they are branded racists, hate-mongers, Nazis and their motives questioned.

I don't recall the media and the left speaking out against those who branded President Bush as Hitler, a blood-thirsty murdering tyrant or some idiot angel of death.

You guys championed the protests as true patriotism in action. You never questioned the political motives or what drove the people to protest. You guys liked "astroturf" actions, disrupting hearings and meetings, attacking anyone on the right at any time.

Let's play the attack game. Let me throw the same bile at you and attack your character and disregard your true feelings so I can marginalize and denegrate your views:

You are the party of death. Afterall, you favor abortion, killing patients who don't have a quality of life for which you approve. Abortion was championed by Margaret Sanger, who believed in Eugenics and using abortion as a means to kill those she deemed as inferior.

Peter Singer, another great liberal mind and champion of "government health care", is a true believer in ridding society of inferiors and the infirmed who do not meet his standards for quality of life.

You guys favor the destruction of human embryos --- life --- so that they can be used to create drugs (produced by the evil, "big" pharmaceutical companies) to save people.

And you wrote: It's only in recent decades that the technology has existed to prolong the "signs of life" indefinitely. Doctors for ages have reached a point where they inform families, "there is no more that can be done." In these modern times that is much more that can be done, but to what end? To prolong a life that has been emptied of purpose, activity, accomplishment, joy? To extend the suffering of our loved ones? To receive treatment that is potentially more expensive than everything that has gone before? What is the purpose?

Who are you to judge that? What gives you that right to impose that on someone else?

Further, if you feel that way, I'm certain many on the left do as well and those are the ones that will be making decisions on "suggesting" care for doctors on some federal board.

See, I believe you are a smart, compassionate, caring person. I don't believe you have evil intentions or hold malicious intent.

So why don't we, who hold opposing views to yours, deserve the same respect and consideration from you on the left, in the Democrat party, in the media?

Those who speak out, who've actually read the bills and dislike what they read, are branded as "dangerous" angry mobs who are ignorant tools of "big" insurance or pharmaceutical.

Dems/Libs/Media branded townhall protestors as "un-American" --- I thought it was a sin to question one's patriotism?

Yes, how dare they question President Barack Obama.

You are incorrect: insurance companies actually favor the bills because they do NOT allow companies to sell policies across state lines, which would allow people and businesses to shop the best priced coverage. This is competition which would drive health costs down.

Insurance companies, under the bills, would keep its territories/markets, thus setting the costs.

The bills also do not reign in trial lawyers and lawsuits, which drive up health care costs. But the lawyers have the most powerful special interest group for Democrats (it's interesting you on the left never brand trial lawyers as evil or as "big" law or "big" attorneys as you do "big" insurance --- talk about injecting a negative term into a debate).

One bill (page 16 of the 1014-page opus) does not allow people to buy private insurance on their own. The bills do not allow people to choose if and how much coverage they carry.

And the bills ration care. As the President stated, 80% of the cost "burden" is from care for the elderly. There will be a federal board established to "suggest" best procedures versus cost when treating patients.

The bills do not explain how more people will get more care without an increase in doctors and nurses.

And if doctors --- another villain branded by Obama and the Dems as people who will yank a kid's tonsils out if it means a bigger payday --- are paid less for procedures the government deems unnecessary, do you really believe it will not come to a patient being told you're too old or your quality of life is not worth the cost?

What about granting coverage to millions of illegal immigrants?

What about public-funded abortions?

Do we not have the right to question this?

Do we not have a right to ask how are we going to pay for this, how will the government offer more care, for more people with fewer doctors and medical staff?

President Obama can claim they would pay for their grandmother's care (that is the grandmother who he called a racist during the campaign). Again, as with all liberal elites, he will not have to be subject to government programs: he will tell YOU how to live, what to read, eat, what car to drive, how big your house can be, how much you can earn and how much you can keep.

It's amazing to see the left, whichcame out of the 60s rebelling against authority and power, now eager to have goverment authority in all our lives.

Do you really believe the government, which has mismanaged social security, your beloved medicare/medicaid (going bankrupt), the post office, AMTRAK among other programs, can operate health care?

Obama (and many Democrats in Congress) said many times his goal is a single payer plan and these bills will be a foothold into having government run ALL healthcare.

Once government gets that power, it will lead to an end to private insurance because no private company can compete with the government. Businesses (as it did in Obama's home state of Hawaii when it provided free health care for children) will drop health insurance for employees, thus driving people to the government.

Yes, lets change a system for which 80% of the "customers" approve.

I'm in favor of providing health insurance for the poor.

And maybe we should start there before overhauling the system.

Maybe we should take a little more time tearing down and re-building 1/6th of our economy.

Maybe those supporting these bills should actually read the bills (unlike the stimulus).

And, like President Bush and his administration, President Obama and Congress should face "passionate" examples "true patriotism" and listen to the people.

Ebert: You write: "I'm in favor of providing health insurance for the poor."

Okay! If you add those who don't qualify for health insurance or can't get it through work, we're on the same page.

One question-

The US government runs/controls Medicare, Social Security, The Post Office. All are going bankrupt. Why would we want to hand over our entire healthcare system to them?

The US government is only required to provide us with a military. I'm by no means suggesting that we give up our national parks, social security, etc. But once you enact an "entitlement" program, it can never be taken away. People build their lives around their entitlements. This US' debt has skyrocketed to unimaginable numbers during the last few years. Why is everyone rushing to spend more money?

I agree that we need reform, but I don't think that government is the answer.

I'm not a paranoid "big-brother fearer." but I do know that once the government takes control of an entity, they make the rules.

I also think that there is a problem when elected officials begin personally attacking private citizens. Yes, some people who are protesting at the town halls are a little too radical, but I think that we should stick to facts rather than emotions.

Eventually someone has to pay for all of this.

"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -Jefferson

"As government expands, liberty contracts." -Reagan

Ebert: The debt has doubled because of a war based on lies. Health care would have been cheap. Maybe we should get Halliburton to provide it.

Roger,

I remember watching your television show with Gene Siskel since birth and consistently reading your reviews online since I was 12. I'm 23 now. I've always loved films and your opinions have always helped decide what I should see when I'm at a crossroads. You've opened my eyes to some amazing films: My Dinner With Andre, The Bicycle Thief, Dark City and your review for the original Dawn of the Dead (I was 13 at the time) opened my eyes to the amazing usage of satire in a brilliantly gory masterpiece.

Hearing the news of your illness and reading your blog "The Balcony is Closed," brought a tear to my eye.

This is the first time I've posted on your blog.

It seems each passing day, you become more and more progressive and truly vocalize a voice of reason. Universal healthcare shouldn't even be an argument, to tell you the truth... but, it is. Deciding whether or not to invade a country who has no ties to 9/11 shouldn't have been much of an argument, either... but hell, we know it was an the powers that be that want to hold us down did so quite effectively. They won that argument.

I don't think the far right has much of a leg to stand on anymore. They have to redefine their platform. Honestly, they reveal a sadness to their platform the further away from them our country goes. I don't understand why so many far right Republicans feel they have a monopoly on patriotism when the majority of anti-government militias are comprised of the same demographic.

This backward ideology and opposition to anything positive is being revealed. I don't think it will last much longer because the louder they get, the more lunatic they sound. Basically, it's comprised of direct contradictions:

Pro Life + Pro War = wtf?
Patriotic + Anti-Government = hmmm?
Tax $ Toward War = Good
Tax $ Toward Saving a Life = Un-American, Euro-Trash Nonsense

To paraphrase Jon Stewart when tackling a common conservative opposition to universal healthcare likening it to the post office, "What's wrong with the post office? For 42 cents, they come to my house and take my mail on a plane."

I agree that the town hall meetings have become as disorganized as the meetings the Senate and House have. Honestly if they being or representation cannot work it out at that level what makes them think it will be any better in a town hall format. I do not agree with the statement that it is the far right that is pushing the term death panels. It seems to be coming from the media in general. Once again they are the ones who put this term out there on a daily basis. There is no one out there who has as much influential power as the media. Be it right wing, left wing, far right or left. They are the ones who can influence the people who choose a side only for the name (Democratic, Republican, Liberal and etc). You are right when you say almost every major country has a health care that is in part run or funded or advised by the government. SO why don, we pattern it after one of these heath care systems that is successful. Why must we try to start from scratch with a model that is not tried or proven. Have we as a country become so proud that we are not willing to use other peoples models that are tried and proven and are successful. Come on now lets call this what is really is turning out to be a Socialization of Health that the majority of the people in my area do not want. Does the term "WE THE PEOPLE" MEAN ANY THING TO ANY ONE. God Bless America

If Candians knew what was good for them, they wouldn't live in Canada.

The US government runs/controls Medicare, Social Security, The Post Office. All are going bankrupt. Why would we want to hand over our entire healthcare system to them?

The US government is only required to provide us with a military. I'm by no means suggesting that we give up our national parks, social security, etc. But once you enact an "entitlement" program, it can never be taken away. People build their lives around their entitlements. This US' debt has skyrocketed to unimaginable numbers during the last few years. Why is everyone rushing to spend more money?

I agree that we need reform, but I don't think that government is the answer.

I'm not a paranoid "big-brother fearer." but I do know that once the government takes control of an entity, they make the rules.

I also think that there is a problem when elected officials begin personally attacking private citizens. Yes, some people who are protesting at the town halls are a little too radical, but I think that we should stick to facts rather than emotions.

I'm still young, and I don't have the life experience that those in power have, but I know that eventually someone has to pay for all of this.

"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -Jefferson

"As government expands, liberty contracts." -Reagan

Ebert: "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." -- Reagan

Do you know what the "public option" is? It would be the establishment of a federal fund to provide health insurance for those who cannot afford it.

Roger, that's actually not what the "public option" refers to; I think you're confusing two separate components of health-care reform.

The "public option" or "public plan" refers to a proposal for a new nonprofit insurance provider, similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits program. Anyone who wishes to purchase insurance (whether an individual or an employer), would have the option to purchase insurance through the public plan instead of a private insurer. The idea is basically to keep private insurers honest, by putting competitive pressure on them to keep premiums down. There is also evidence (from other countries, but also from our own, e.g. Medicare vs. Medicare Advantage), that nonprofit insurance can operate significantly more efficiently than for-profit insurers (who spend a lot of money on administrative and marketing overhead), and this will show us whether that works on a larger scale in the US. (If the private insurers do a better job for lower cost, great! And if they can't compete, why keep them propped up?)

A completely separate provision of reform is that health-insurance costs for low-income people will be subsidized (supplementing our Medicaid program). In contrast, the public plan is non-profit but not subsidized per se, it is paid for by those who enroll just as for-profit insurers are.

A straightforward presentation of the four basic components of the proposed health-care reform can be found in a recent column by Paul Krugman.

I wish that left-liberals and moderates would expose themselves to libertarian ideas in these matters. Creating entitlements, evens as options, would be creating a dependent class of people that politicians can manipulate. This is what the Dems want. The Republicans pay lip service to markets and economic freedom, but want to maintain and even enhance the status quo, which is government intervention on behalf of big business.

Neither party has the best interests of the people in mind. Politicians do not have the best interests of the citizenry in mind. They do not have to. Once you make them dependent on you, obedience will follow.

The system that's in place in the United States now is roughly soft fascism, or Mercantilism, ie. partnership of the State and the Business Sector. Low-cost health care has been out of the question for decades. Murray Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto has information about a doctor in New York who tried to establish a low-cost hospital for the poor:

A few years later, Dr. Matthew and his colleagues seized an unused [p. 166] building in Harlem owned by the city government. (The New York City government is the city's biggest "slumlord," owning as it does a vast amount of useful buildings abandoned because of nonpayment of high property taxes and rotting away, rendered useless and uninhabitable.) In this building, Dr. Matthew established a low-cost hospital — at a time of soaring hospital costs and scarcity of hospital space. The city finally succeeded in putting this hospital, too, out of business, claiming "fire violations." Again and again, in area after area, the role of government has been to thwart the economic activities of the poor. It is no wonder that when Dr. Matthew was asked by a white official of the New York City government how it could best aid Negro self-help projects, Matthew replied: "Get out of our way, and let us try something."

Also, try this piece by left-libertarian author Kevin Carson:
Open Source healthcare

Carson reveals why prescription drug prices are so high in his critique of Intellectual Property:
Intellectual Property a Libertarian Critique[PDF]

3 points:

First, thank you Mr. Ebert for writing this.

Second - I have not been ill or injured in another country. I have not lived in another country. I imagine that all systems of both government and health care have flaws. That said, I would think that intelligent people would respect the statements of those who HAVE had experience with their respective countries/ health care system over those who have NEVER had experience with it. The ration here is like 20/1 regarding Canadian health care, if you include the one Canandian. Their system works for them, has some areas of needed improvement, but certainly does not bankrupt people or, in the vast majority of cases, deny or delay needed timely care. And you know what? If you don't want to wait, you can indeed go elsewhere outside the public system and pay for it ala American style.

Third - the smoke screen of Tort reform. Doesn't work. Look at California and Missouri and other states. Tort reform was put into effect, but malpractice insurance rates barely budged. Insurers love it, lawyers hate it, and doctors are mixed.

I'm kind of exasperated by how this healthcare "debate" is playing out. What do you do when your country is seemingly incapable of reasonably evaluating policy options to deal with a problem that we all face (in this case first in costs, 42nd in quality of healthcare)? I run a small business and our health insurance premiums were just arbitrarily raised by our provide 73% from last year's rates, all with no change in our employees. Yet people rally against these new proposals, which all ends up enriching the folks who were screwing us to begin with. Ok, maybe I just tipped my hand as to where I stand on the issue. But I'm beginning to wonder if it's even possible to bring about policy improvements if a relatively modest proposal for new policy(a public option is quite far from any of the European or Canadian models out there) leads to this much outrage. How are we ever going to tackle global warming?

I'm against a federal public option simply because I'm a constitutionalist and a federalist. As I say this I would take a lot of heat for saying I would also get rid of Social Security, Medicare, and several other federal programs which I feel (and the majority of the creators of the constitution would agree) are unconstitional. I don't disagree that these programs can be useful, but they can be run on a state or individual level.

Now back to health care. What does a public option solve?

Is it going to lower cost? The only way to insure more people and lower cost is to ration care. The "death panel" thing has been put way out of scope by the media and Sarah Palin. The life counseling issue in the HR bill has nothing to do with this. A Public option telling an elderly person that he/she can have a pain killer pill instead of treatment is another. Every government with a single payer system must now decide who to save and what treatments are affordable enough to cover. This is where the true "death panel" comes from.

Is it going to raise taxes for the middle class and small business? Those that already have insurance are simply going to be paying for those that don't. If you want to look at the haves and have nots, I think you need to cut the line down the middle of what the median income is in America. Currently, the median income is around $45,000 for a household.

Will a public option lead to a single payer system? You have politicians on both sides that say so. There is recordings of Obama saying a public option could lead to a single payer system in 15-20 yrs. Other top Democrats in Congress are saying that they believe the public option will lead to single payer. I know many are for a single payer system, but the majority of Americans are against it. Now I said before that I am a constitutionalist. I can accept the fact that a single payer system would be constitutional as it would meet the requirement of being spending for the General Welfare of the nation. In other words its going to everyone instead of a select group like federal programs such as SS (payments only go to older or poor persons) or Medicare (payments/care only go for older people).

What happens to medical research? How much is the US currently spending on medical research compared to other countries? I know we spend a lot of frivolous money on drugs like Viagra, but I do believe we are leading the world in research money spent. The US currently provides 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology (admit this is a Wikipedia stat). Are we going to hinder future generations by delaying cures of AIDs, Cancer, Diabetes, etc? Will we have the same number of top minds going into medical research if they know other areas are more profitable? Is the key to lowering health care costs curing these expensive diseases?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Medical_products.2C_research_and_development (for stats on our medical research)

Now, there are several regulations that Washington can use constitutionally to improve medicare. Discourage the employee provider coverage and remove restrictions from insurance companies selling across state borders. These two areas hinder portability and increase the problem of coverage for pre-existing conditions. The government could set caps on how much premiums can be increased in a year, and create laws to restrict the insurance companies from simply dropping individuals. The consumers then need to be intelligent and pick plans that are best for them. I’m personally going to a high deductible and HSA this year. It will save me money as well as give me funds for future medical care in the years ahead. I realize there is a risk, but that is life. We need reform, but we don’t need a public option.

Ebert: It is admirable that you state your position and logically explain where it leads you, and for me, at least, it leads you to a conclusion I found surprising. I started reading your post thinking I could tell where you were going with it, and I was mistaken.

Private Health Care Insurance Is a Sucker’s Game.

The Insurance Cabal takes in more money than they pay out. That is their whole reason for existing. They collect money from as many healthy suckers as possible, making sure to charge enough to pay their executives, and huge health services denial staffs very large compensation packages, and also make large annual profit margins to boost the value of their stock offerings, and their own stock options.

All that money gets skimmed off the top, before they pay out any money to reimburse sick people.

If you get rid of those leeches, then all the money that they are skimming of the top, will then be available to cover the millions who now can not afford coverage, or who the Private Insurance Leeches refuse to cover.

This is not rocket science folks. The Private Insurance Cabal are not in the National Health Care Business.

They are in the National Scamming Business.

They operate in a very similar manner to how Bernie Madeoff did.

They take in vast amounts of money, under false pretenses, and always return far less than they take in.

Can you say Massive Health Insurance Ponzi scheme, Boys And Girls?

A Modest Proposal.

Should they defeat the Public Insurance Option, then it is up to people to go the Boycott route.

All those who are currently at the age where they are covered by Medicare, have nothing to worry about, so they should sit this one out.

All those who are a position where they are young and healthy, should stop paying for Insurance. Purchase only catastrophic coverage. If you have children, and your state covers young kids, go that route. If you are wealthy, only purchase catastrophic coverage.

These are just suggestions, off the top of my head, but you all can organize and come up with creative ways to Starve The Insurance Monster who is devouring your health care funds while people are getting less and less proper medical care.

If they defeat the public option, which of course they want to, because like all scam artists, they do not want to have any limits put on their ability to bleed the public dry, for their own personal enrichment. They hate sick people, that is why they will not cover them. They love healthy suckers.

Remember the gift that County Mayo gave the world;

BOYCOTT. BOYCOTT. BOYCOTT.

Starve the beast. That is probably the only way you will ever get to where people will get honest health care coverage. You have to shed the Insurance Leeches, who are sucking the lifeblood out of, the system, then the Medical profession will demand a single payer system.

Roll up your sleeves and organize.

Only you can kill the Insurance Cabal’s bloodsucking Ponzi operation.

Addendum.

Remember; All it would takes is just a 10 to 20% drop in the number of people paying into the Insurance Cabal’s Phony Protection Racket, to bring their whole house of cards tumbling down.

If you are in a position to be able to do so, they you should. Do you want to live your entire healthy life as a sucker for the Insurance Leeches, or are you willing to take action in order to break the death grip that they now hold on the life and death decisions of the populace, and the economic future of the country.

National Security is not all about sending young people off to war. There are battles that have to fought and won on the home front.

The status quo is going to bankrupt the country, and because the Robber Barons, and their Republican boot licks, have seen to it that they middle class has been destroyed, the vast majority of people are well on the way to having to live a minimum wage life style. Hell, the Republicans did not even want that starvation wage level raised, so if you think that they care a rat’s arse about your health care, then you are among the terminally bewildered.

If you do not rise up now, then you deserve to be wiped out.

Isn't it ironic that radical opponents of public health care use death as a tactic when so many die each year simply because nothing is available to them? (18,000/year according to a 2002 study)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

The meme should be: "Why waste twenty grand?"

Roger,

I do not think it's just the insurance companies who are adamant about keeping the privatized healthcare. There are a good many people who pay for their own insurance who do get great coverage as you probably got during your cancer scare who fear what a socialized alternative would bring to their current level of healthcare. Although the current plan would really just raise the minimum healthcare level and allow them to keep their insurance plans, they still worry about the raise in prices if there was some sort of government competition. I can understand them being fearful of losing that safety and I think a lot of the talk about Canada and the UK having long wait times to see doctors and the other horror stories play into that fear.

At the same time, I am one of those lucky to be in a position to have a good healthcare plan, but I still wonder every month why I feel like I'm getting taken advantage of. Every conversation with my insurance company is like pulling teeth to get them to pay for routine fees while my deductible inexplicably goes up. I am beginning to think that, like so many other things in America, we let the bottom line be the guiding force so too long that we let every other guiding principal slip away to our detriment.

If we do not get over the fears of death panels and socialized healthcare, I do not see a way for us to get past this near monopoly insurance companies have over our healthcare.

P.S. When I got was externing in London two summers ago, I ended up at the emergency room with a bum ankle from playing soccer. Whereas it typically takes four to six hours to see a doctor back at home, it took fifteen minutes and cost me nothing. No insurance card needed.

“The speaking in perpetual hyperbole is comely in nothing but love” - Francis Bacon Sr.

What stuns me about the rhetoric back and forth are the extremes both sides seem to go to make their point. What happened to rational dialogue? Surely no one could argue that the present American Health Care system is adequate for every American? Why can someone not oppose the status quo, or for that matter a proposed resoultion without attacking it the most harsh language available?

"Death panels" indeed. Does no one realize embracing such a phrase completely destroys all credibility? Worse, do those who perpetuate the myths around these 'death panels' realize how ludicrous it sounds?

I find myself thinking back on Jon Stewart's commentary on Crossfire, and to paraphrase him, I think all of this hyperbole - "it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America."

Especially odd given this issue is about healing America.

Oh, and I'm a Canadian and I think our system is fine. I'd like to see it improved, but never dismantled.

Amazing, you acuse the people who disagree with you of not understanding the issues, of being fueld by "hate" and being foolish and lied to. Amazing that you can sweep aside half the country like that, don't you think when you insult half the country and say they're just too hateful and stupid that you yourself are displaying that behavior?

Hypocrite much?

It's possible to want to help people without insurance and yet be opposed to this current bill. Despite your hate and insults towards me, you are wrong. It strikes me the same as Obama's insults like "clinging to god and guns". Everyone who disagrees must be bad, right? Funny you think I am either paid off or lied to by insurance companies, when the insurance companies all SUPPORT this bill - they've already done their back room dealings and got what they wanted.

The time to stop passing judgement on people who disagree with us has come.

Why can't we just expand medicaid as a temporary measure, and then have a national discussion on health care reform. Isn't that a better idea than overhauling an entire system based on back room insider deals?

"I am a brain cancer survivor and when I was diagnosed my Canadian doctor advised me that I would have had to wait six months for an MRI in which time I would have died. He also said it would be 5 months before surgery if it was needed. All I know is I have had many MRI's and Dr. appointments in the same day good luck with that with Nationalized Healthcare."

Greetings from Canada. Ever been here before? Because I don't believe that story for one second.

I am free in America, and the REST of the world don't understand our freedom.

If you had nationalized health care, what freedoms would you be giving up exactly? It seems to me the system you have now actually allows for less freedom, because you have to prove you can pay your doctors before they will treat you. I don't have to worry about that. The question is never even asked, because as a citizen I don't pay my doctors directly, and hence they don't have to treat me based on what I can afford. They just treat beased on what I need.

"I am a brain cancer survivor and when I was diagnosed my Canadian doctor advised me that I would have had to wait six months for an MRI in which time I would have died. He also said it would be 5 months before surgery if it was needed. All I know is I have had many MRI's and Dr. appointments in the same day good luck with that with Nationalized Healthcare."

Greetings from Canada. Ever been here before? Because I don't believe that story for one second.

I am free in America, and the REST of the world don't understand our freedom.

If you had nationalized health care, what freedoms would you be giving up exactly? It seems to me the system you have now actually allows for less freedom, because you have to prove you can pay your doctors before they will treat you. I don't have to worry about that. The question is never even asked, because as a citizen I don't pay my doctors directly, and hence they don't have to treat me based on what I can afford. They just treat beased on what I need.