First 100 Days

[Jefe]

[quote]Those quotes tell us that Thomas Jefferson was an ardent anti-federalist. So what is our takeaway from that? The US became the most powerful and successful country in the world during the 20th century, a period during which the federal government grew at geometric rates. Life and society improved immeasurably during this time, not just in terms of health, quality of life and scientific advancement, but in terms of civil rights and freedom for all-- something which TJ overlooked.
[/quote]

I think he overlooked it cause he was already dead by this point

[SallyLightfoot]

Cute. Thomas Jefferson and most of the founding fathers codified liberty and inherent, inalienable rights for all-- all adult white males, that is. Ultimately this oversight would nearly break up the union and leave behind gaps which are still being addressed today.

[KYYX4ever]

Obama rocks !

here's to another 100 days, and beyond.[:)]

[djcraig]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>djcraig wrote: "I'm afraid we're catching up with the Euros."

What specifically is so bad about Europe? Here are some things which are not bad, so I'm wondering what is so awful that outweighs all of this:<ul><li>their highly rated overall happiness?<li>their longer lifespans?</li><li>their shorter workweeks and more vacation?</li><li>their universal healthcare?</li><li>their low rates of infant mortality and childhood poverty?</li><li>their low murder rates?</li><li>their higher rates of literacy and numeracy?</li><li>their greater # of science and engineering graduates, leadership in producing scientific literature, and greater R & D spending?</li><li>their industry leadership in chemicals, engineering & construction, and food/drugstore retail?</li><li>the fact that sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European (while 50 are U.S.)?</li></ul>Those quotes tell us that Thomas Jefferson was an ardent anti-federalist. So what is our takeaway from that? The US became the most powerful and successful country in the world during the 20th century, a period during which the federal government grew at geometric rates. Life and society improved immeasurably during this time, not just in terms of health, quality of life and scientific advancement, but in terms of civil rights and freedom for all-- something which TJ overlooked.

Could our success have been achieved if the US instead evolved into a loose confederation of states with minimal federal government? It's an interesting thought. If you could, would you be willing to trade in the success of what America is today in exchange for your lower taxes-- which, let's face it, is the main reason you and the tea-bagger crowd have rediscovered value in slogans from early patriots.
[/quote]

It comes down to your personal philosophy. Do you believe that more government is the answer for every problem or, as Reagan quipped, "Government IS the problem"? I have never yet seen anyone that could handle my money, retirement planning or health decisions better than I can do it myself. Let alone some distant, faceless, non-accountable, wasteful bureaucracy.

Universal healthcare sounds wonderful until you realize that inherent in that system is less service for a higher cost. If you live in England you are covered under a socialized medicine plan that is notorious for it's "bureaucracy, demoralization and capricious medical fads".<small> -The Wall Street Journal Europe, May 3, 2001.</small> Those needing necessary hospital treatment are put on a waiting list. This can take up to a year or more.

If an American scientist discovers a life saving drug that could save you or a family member from dying from a terminal illness do you know how many YEARS of testing it would take to get final approval from the FDA? Can you afford to wait?

Government growth in the last century has been a by product of a thriving economy, not a cause of it. Lately, so many American corporations have moved offshore to avoid prohibitive taxes and government regulation that on May 4, 2009, President Obama called for curbing offshore tax havens and corporate tax breaks. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/business/05tax.html

Lower literacy rates? Our public schools are government run and mandated. One need look no further that the dysfunction that is the American education system for proof that government involvement does more to screw things up than help.

Jefferson aside, I doubt if ANY of the early American patriots would believe that what we're devolving into was what they had in mind. I'm guessing you don't live in the paradise you describe as Europe and do not have any plans to move there in the immediate future.

The Soviets tried Socialism. They got corruption, bankruptcy and ultimately, failure.



<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>

[birdmadgirl]

[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
<br>Obama rocks !

here's to another 100 days, and beyond.[:)]
[/quote]

Hell, yes. Here's to the rest of this year and many, many more.

[SallyLightfoot]

[b]djcraig wrote:[/b]
[i]Do you believe that more government is the answer for every problem or, as Reagan quipped, "Government IS the problem"?[/i]

I believe that more (or rather better) government is the answer for some problems. Obama recently stated that he would prefer not to have to take over AIG and bail out the banks. I think he has been outspoken about wanting better, smarter government and regulation rather than just bigger government. You have to think about the converse question as well: Is the free market and private enterprise the answer for every problem? Given all of the recent problems we've had with the free market (S&L's, LTC, Enron, WorldCom, military contractor fraud, mortgage and derivatives trading, etc.), I think it's pretty clear that a strong govt role is essential.

[b]djcraig wrote:[/b]
[i]I have never yet seen anyone that could handle my money, retirement planning or health decisions better than I can do it myself. Let alone some distant, faceless, non-accountable, wasteful bureaucracy.[/i]

You are free to do all of those things without government intervention, provided you follow existing laws and pay your taxes. Without taxes, the infrastructure (roads, schools, telecom, military, regulation) that enables the standard of living in this country would not be possible. Note that for health decisions, unless you are paying with cash from your own pocket, an insurance company doctor is almost certainly controlling the level of care you receive (or if you're covered at all), and the calculus is tuned for corporate profitability, not the well-being of djcraig. But hey, if you're rich, these concerns are way beneath you. In this case, the US is still a great country to be in.

[b]djcraig wrote:[/b]
[i]Universal healthcare sounds wonderful until you realize that inherent in that system is less service for a higher cost. ... Those needing necessary hospital treatment are put on a waiting list. This can take up to a year or more.[/i]

It is well established that the US system far-and-away has the highest cost for less service and mediocre results. The US system has invisible waiting lists today -- in the form of not covering tens of millions of citizens. This is a form of rationing. At least on the waiting lists in Europe and Canada you will get the care you need. In the US, if you're one of the tens of millions who don't have insurance, or if your insurer denies coverage (for any reason), you're SOL. You'll avoid or delay care until you end up in an emergency room, hopefully alive, but likely facing bankruptcy.

[b]djcraig wrote:[/b]
[i]If an American scientist discovers a life saving drug that could save you or a family member from dying from a terminal illness do you know how many YEARS of testing it would take to get final approval from the FDA? Can you afford to wait?[/i]

This is a hypothetical-- a difficult family issue, sure, but not one to base public health policy on. On the other hand, if FDA rules were relaxed (or eliminated), are we willing to deal with all of the ineffective hail-mary drugs that would emerge the market, taking advantage of the desperately ill? These days, big pharma (these are large global multi-nationals, not national co's) focuses on making copy-cat drugs, trying to capitalize on the high demand for blood thinners and cholesterol drugs, on things like male impotency and hair loss. The legwork of performing primary research, is often left to universities (via private and govt grants!) and public research institutions such as the NIH (http://www.nih.gov/). Get rid of those public institutions and there will really be fewer cures and medicines.

[b]djcraig wrote:[/b]
[i]Government growth in the last century has been a by product of a thriving economy, not a cause of it. Lately, so many American corporations have moved offshore to avoid prohibitive taxes and government regulation that on May 4, 2009, President Obama called for curbing offshore tax havens and corporate tax breaks.[/i]

Offshore tax havens have been a problem for decades. Most large US corps pay astonishingly little in taxes. An argument can be made that this helps them stay competitive, since they would need to raise the prices of their goods/services if they had to pay statutory tax rates. On the other hand, the more loopholes that are exploited means a greater burden of tax revenues that the rest of us have to shoulder. Due to the control that corporations have over Congress and the administration, it is unlikely that Obama is going to do anything about these havens; it is far more likely that Obama is attempting to use corp tax reform as a bargaining chip in exchange for support on more ambitious goals such as health care.

[b]djcraig wrote:[/b]
[i]Lower literacy rates? Our public schools are government run and mandated. One need look no further that the dysfunction that is the American education system for proof that government involvement does more to screw things up than help.[/i]

I did not point to the US education system as a success for government. I pointed to European literacy rates as a relative success for them-- their schools are government run and free through the university level. Education reform is important, but private schools (if that's what you're advocating) do not offer a silver bullet.

[b]djcraig wrote:[/b]
[i]Jefferson aside, I doubt if ANY of the early American patriots would believe that what we're devolving into was what they had in mind. I'm guessing you don't live in the paradise you describe as Europe and do not have any plans to move there in the immediate future.[/i]

I lived in France for 2 years. I have very few complaints about it and would move back there without regrets. But I don't claim that Europe is by any stretch a paradise. It has its own set of problems. I'm not proposing that the US emulate France or Europe-- which some advocating the status-quo seem to fear. I'm being pragmatic; I think it is reasonable to take good ideas from any society or culture and form them into our own solutions where appropriate.

[b]djcraig wrote:[/b]
[i]The Soviets tried Socialism. They got corruption, bankruptcy and ultimately, failure.[/i]

No-one is proposing Soviet-style anything here. The Soviets had totalitarianism, collectivism and communism. While I don't dispute the results, the details matter. The Soviet system was not socialism as applied to Europe or the US. European countries are based on state capitalism, which simply means there is a high-degree of coordination between the state, labor unions and corporations. European countries directly control and manage more functions in their societies than we do in the US. In some cases, it works to their benefit, and in others to their detriment.

Let's be humble, though. We have seen plenty of failure, corruption and bankruptcy right here in the US of A. I think that we need better government and smarter spending, not more government and more spending. Government is able to institute changes that benefit all citizens, ensuring equal access and fairness to all. These changes cost money and take time. The private enterprise sector chases the quarterly earnings cycle; it is concerned with the bottom line, not the greater good.

I think our time and energy is best spent trying to reform government. Better, in my opinion, to address our problems together as a nation instead of regressing to a mass of individuals driven by self-interest. This Ayn Rand style capitalism would further break down our social fabric and erode the 20th century socio-economic mobility which elevated our country to its current position in the world.

In my opinion, our government needs to become a better steward of the country, and not cede its power to individuals -- the self-serving corporate interests and the rich/powerful elites. At this point, Obama's political philosophy is more aligned in this direction, whereas the GOP, with talk of tea parties and state succession, is cynically fomenting dissent for partisan political gain.

[djcraig]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[b]djcraig wrote:[/b]
[i]Do you believe that more government is the answer for every problem or, as Reagan quipped, "Government IS the problem"?[/i]

I believe that more (or rather better) government is the answer for some problems. Obama recently stated that he would prefer not to have to take over AIG and bail out the banks.
[/quote]
This is a government proposed solution to a government caused problem. Liberal do gooders decided that everyone in America should be able to own a home whether they can afford one or not. Their goal of encouraging the banks to make loans to the unqualified and then not providing oversight has left us all holding the bag.

According to some experts the gov't solution (bailout) will result in another "bubble" that when popped, will again have devastating effects. A perfect example of government getting involved in the name of making our lives "better".

[quote]

[b]djcraig wrote:[/b]
[i]I have never yet seen anyone that could handle my money, retirement planning or health decisions better than I can do it myself. Let alone some distant, faceless, non-accountable, wasteful bureaucracy.[/i]

You are free to do all of those things without government intervention, provided you follow existing laws and pay your taxes. [/quote]

Um, yeah, the already gov't takes about half my money earned every year in taxes, so no, I don't get to handle an ever growing amount of my own money. I'd consider that a pretty good amount of intervention. This, in turn, affects my ability to plan for retirement and provide adequate health care.

[quote]

[b]djcraig wrote:[/b]
[i]Universal healthcare sounds wonderful until you realize that inherent in that system is less service for a higher cost. ... Those needing necessary hospital treatment are put on a waiting list. This can take up to a year or more.[/i]

It is well established that the US system far-and-away has the highest cost for less service and mediocre results. The US system has invisible waiting lists today -- in the form of not covering tens of millions of citizens. This is a form of rationing. At least on the waiting lists in Europe and Canada you will get the care you need. [/quote]

Canadian health care is documented to be horrible.

So you think that the rest of us taxpayers subsidizing health care for the "tens of millions" that can't or won't pay for it will result in a higher standard of care for all of us? I can barely pay for my own healthcare and now I'm going to pay for my neighbor too and get better care?

Step AWAY from the hippie lettuce!

You know the old saying, "If you think health care is expensive now just wait until it is free."

[quote]
[b]djcraig wrote:[/b]
[i]If an American scientist discovers a life saving drug that could save you or a family member from dying from a terminal illness do you know how many YEARS of testing it would take to get final approval from the FDA? Can you afford to wait?[/i]

This is a hypothetical-- a difficult family issue, sure, but not one to base public health policy on. [/quote]


Hypothetical unless you're the one who's sick. Right now we have citizens traveling abroad to get the treatment they need from countries whos less cumbersome machinations result in faster approval for cutting edge treatments.

[quote]

Let's be humble, though. We have seen plenty of failure, corruption and bankruptcy right here in the US of A. I think that we need better government and smarter spending, not more government and more spending. Government is able to institute changes that benefit all citizens, ensuring equal access and fairness to all. These changes cost money and take time. The private enterprise sector chases the quarterly earnings cycle; it is concerned with the bottom line, not the greater good.

[/quote]

Is this out of the Karl Marx handbook?

[quote]

I think our time and energy is best spent trying to reform government. Better, in my opinion, to address our problems together as a nation instead of regressing to a mass of individuals driven by self-interest.

[/quote]

Self interest and the greater good are often intertwined. That's what make free markets and capitalism work so well. When the gov't decides it can do better we usually end up regretting it in the form of red tape, endless bureaucracy and unintended consequences.





<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>

[wherewereuin82]

[quote][i]Originally posted by djcraig[/i]

Canadian health care is documented to be horrible.

[/quote]

Sorry. Far be it from me to comment on something I don't know about. But this wouldn't be documented by the opponents of universal health care would it?

I don't know of anyone, family or friends, that has had to wait for anything. Let alone die waiting. Which seems to be the buzz I always hear. I can walk into any hospital in this province and know that I'll get the same standard of care as the rich guy in the room next to me. Maybe he'll get a hotter nurse. That's about it. I know that I'll never have to worry that my parents won't check into a hospital for fear that they won't have enough money to pay for it. The same goes for meds.

Just wondering if this has been your experience with the Canadian health system?

And now I'll unstick my nose from something I know nothing about.

[SallyLightfoot]

djcraig: [i][Obama recently stated that he would prefer not to have to take over AIG and bail out the banks....] This is a government proposed solution to a government caused problem. Liberal do gooders decided that everyone in America should be able to own a home whether they can afford one or not. Their goal of encouraging the banks to make loans to the unqualified and then not providing oversight has left us all holding the bag.[/i]

False. You've just repeated the smokescreen that Fox News and Wall Streeters have been using to protect their right-wing free-market agenda. Naturally, the bogeymen are the govt (even though Fannie and Freddie don't originate home loans, and the biggest failures happened in CA and FL where they weren't active) liberal do-gooders (CRA from the 70's, which somehow [i]forced[/i] banks to make bad loans?) and unqualified borrowers (code name for poor people, despite evidence that mortgage defaults were distributed broadly across the income spectrum). The crisis has everything to do with [i]private[/i] predatory lending (FBI reports that 80% of the bad loans were criminal acts on the part of the lenders) and Wall Street's stunning recklessness in assuming gargantuan risk (derivatives which would wipe out banks entire capital base if a mere 2.5% of mortgages defaulted-- and the default rate was double that).

If the government hadn't tried to save the banks, 60% of the nation's lending power would have incinerated in bankruptcy virtually overnight. At the time of the crisis, the world's largest economy had already slipped into a recession. Losing the top 20 banks would have made matters many times worse.

djcraig: [i]"Um, yeah, the already gov't takes about half my money earned every year in taxes, so no, I don't get to handle an ever growing amount of my own money. I'd consider that a pretty good amount of intervention. This, in turn, affects my ability to plan for retirement and provide adequate health care."[/i]

Is there a better country with lower taxes that you'd prefer to go to? Marginal tax rates in this country are almost at historic lows, and compare very favorably with any western nation. You take for granted a lot of the things the government provides for you. Try moving to a country with no or low taxes, I think you'll see that you get what you pay for-- poor basic infrastructure, shoddy schools, no poor sanitation and water, bad hospitals, high poverty and crime, lack of democracy or military rule, lack of courts and justice system, etc. You'll soon wish you could go back to your old life in Bedford Falls, George Bailey.

djcraig: [i]"So you think that the rest of us taxpayers subsidizing health care for the "tens of millions" that can't or won't pay for it will result in a higher standard of care for all of us? I can barely pay for my own healthcare and now I'm going to pay for my neighbor too and get better care?"[/i]

Don't you know that we already subsidize health care of the uninsured now?!?! What do you think happens to all of those uninsured people-- you think they don't ever go to emergency rooms or hospitals when they get in car accidents, have babies, get asthma, have heart attacks, or get cancer? No one is turned away from medical care -- the uninsured receive care, and when they can't pay their costs are picked up by public assistance, or the hospitals have to write off the costs (which raises the costs for everyone else). This form of subsidization is very costly, because some of this stuff is preventable or manageable with early care or cheap medications.

Try as you might, you can't sweep all of this under the rug and pretend it isn't there-- the medical problems of poor and/or unemployed people do impact the health care system and the pocket books of the rest of society.

djcraig: [i]"Hypothetical unless you're the one who's sick. Right now we have citizens traveling abroad to get the treatment they need from countries whos less cumbersome machinations result in faster approval for cutting edge treatments."[/i]

I hear you on this. I know a few people who went to Mexico for experimental cancer treatment. I personally know someone who traveled to the Dead Sea in Israel for treatment of a skin condition. I am in favor of cooperation with approval agencies of other nations. I too would like to see faster approval of drugs and therapies. Not a lot to argue on this one, but I will point out that in the US, we are willing to spend infinite sums of money on treatments at the end-of-life. It is understandable when the issue is personal, but many of these treatments are very expensive and frequently do not significantly lengthen the patient's life or improve the quality. Just thought I'd mention the counterpoint on that.

djcraig: [i]"Is this out of the Karl Marx handbook?"[/i]

If you don't know, you should turn off Hannity's Jingoism Hour and instead read Das Kapital (and its critiques), as well as the work of other leading modern economic minds-- Milton Friedman, for example.

[i]"Self interest and the greater good are often intertwined. That's what make free markets and capitalism work so well."[/i]

We don't have a free market here, nor should we. Markets are not magic-- they need the right conditions in order to remain balanced and healthy. Even our regulated markets (although derivates were not regulated) just had experienced an epic, generational failure which almost cast us into a depression.

Excepting the recent meltdown, markets tend to do a good job here in modern times, but the road to maturity has been littered with examples of corruption, fraud, exploitation, health violations and environmental devastation. Government should mostly get out of the way, but it is often necessary to regulate and ensure compliance with laws, access to markets, fairness and competition. The government can operate a business or industry if it is in the nation's best interest (as it has numerous times throughout our history), for example, if the market is unable to provide services in a key area. The military, postal service, railroads, utilities, school system and telecoms are all examples of government providing services because the private sector was inadequate. Sometimes the govt. service is operated at a loss (or the costs are subsidized), if the net value of the service is perceived as important to the economy or society as a whole.

[i]"When the gov't decides it can do better we usually end up regretting it in the form of red tape, endless bureaucracy and unintended consequences."[/i]

It's all about striking the right balance of govt role (socialism) and private enterprise (capitalism). If the private sector is provided unfettered access and no oversight, we often end up with monopolistic behavior, poor service, profiteering, worker exploitation, war, corruption, externalized costs and unintended consequences.

[marie3]

[quote][i]Originally posted by wherewereuin82[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by djcraig[/i]

Canadian health care is documented to be horrible.

[/quote]

Sorry. Far be it from me to comment on something I don't know about. But this wouldn't be documented by the opponents of universal health care would it?

I don't know of anyone, family or friends, that has had to wait for anything. Let alone die waiting. Which seems to be the buzz I always hear. I can walk into any hospital in this province and know that I'll get the same standard of care as the rich guy in the room next to me. Maybe he'll get a hotter nurse. That's about it. I know that I'll never have to worry that my parents won't check into a hospital for fear that they won't have enough money to pay for it. The same goes for meds.

Just wondering if this has been your experience with the Canadian health system?

And now I'll unstick my nose from something I know nothing about.

[/quote]

Thank you for posting this.

I always hear the same old story, "I know someone in Canada that had to wait for an operation for 6 months". Everyone must know the same Canadian who has their ear hanging off and can't get a doctor to sew the thing back on for months.
My sister in law lives in Germany and I have spoken to her about health care. She said it is great. Your sick, you go to the doctor and that is it. She doesn't wait for months on end.
We have medicare and medicaid here and it has been working fine.
There are millions of Americans that lost their jobs over the past eight years because of the greed of businesses who take their companies overseas. What do these people do if they get sick?

And on a different note, wasn't it George Bush that signed the first $700 billion economic bail-out plan in October 2008?

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by wherewereuin82[/i]
<br>I can walk into any hospital in this province and know that I'll get the same standard of care as the rich guy in the room next to me. [/quote]
Whoa, hey, that's un-American!

[eight6]

[quote][i]Originally posted by marie3[/i]

Thank you for posting this.

I always hear the same old story, "I know someone in Canada that had to wait for an operation for 6 months". Everyone must know the same Canadian who has their ear hanging off and can't get a doctor to sew the thing back on for months.

[/quote]

I think this story has morphed over the years. You do have elective surgery rescheduled (at least I've had procedures rescheduled a couple of times) depending on what other more serious matters may need to be dealt with.

Seeing a GP can be an arduous experience, esp. in the urban centers, because people newly here are like a kid in the candy store. [i]"Oh, look, I've cut myself, let me go to my doctor to have a band-aid put on it."[/i] Doctors have a maximum billable amount to OHIP so they are in no hurry to rush to see more than a set number of people on any given day, hence the overflow at the hospital emergency rooms.

[eight6]

[quote][i]Originally posted by wherewereuin82[/i]

...the rich guy in the room next to me. Maybe he'll get a hotter nurse. That's about it.

[/quote]


That must be why I always seem to get Ludmilla with the moustache and garlic breath.

[KYYX4ever]

[quote][i]Originally posted by marie3[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by wherewereuin82[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by djcraig[/i]

Canadian health care is documented to be horrible.

[/quote]
But this wouldn't be documented by the opponents of universal health care would it?

I don't know of anyone, family or friends, that has had to wait for anything. Let alone die waiting. Which seems to be the buzz I always hear. I can walk into any hospital in this province and know that I'll get the same standard of care as the rich guy in the room next to me. Maybe he'll get a hotter nurse. That's about it. I know that I'll never have to worry that my parents won't check into a hospital for fear that they won't have enough money to pay for it. The same goes for meds.

Just wondering if this has been your experience with the Canadian health system?
[/quote]

Thank you for posting this.

I always hear the same old story, "I know someone in Canada that had to wait for an operation for 6 months". Everyone must know the same Canadian who has their ear hanging off and can't get a doctor to sew the thing back on for months.
My sister in law lives in Germany and I have spoken to her about health care. She said it is great. Your sick, you go to the doctor and that is it. She doesn't wait for months on end.
[/quote]

Yes, it does seem that there is one Canadian who is on a perpetual waiting list that Hannity et al. love to use as their example of how horrible health care is there, or in European countries in general.
My sister-in-law lives in France, and is very happy with their health care system. She never has to wait. She shows up at the doctor's office and is seen promptly, and that is the experience of other residents and citizens, as well.
This canard that floats around about looooong waiting times for doctors in other countries with varying forms of universal health care is baseless. We would be wise to examine their systems and incorporate what works best into a new system of our own. We are citizens of our communities; IMO, one of our responsibilities is pitching in for health care for all. Which...we already do anyway (as Sally Lightfoot explained above).

[NuWaveRx]

The Gordian knot of U.S. Health Care can be summed up in one phrase:

"Americans want Cadillac health care, but want it for Volkswagon prices"

This is exacerbated to no end by the layers of bureaucracy interposed between the patient and access to health care (third parties, regulatory agencies, even Medicare/aid) all of whom add their expenses to the bill.

Treatment of an acute MI (heart attack) is a perfect example. Pretty much in the U.S. today the standard of care for treatment of this disorder is a trip to the cardiac catheterization lab for possible coronary stenting (in a procedure called Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) or, if disease is severe enough, to the CT surgeons for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG). The cost of the former treatment is roughly about $40,000 while CABG surgery can be well over $100,000. So the question is are these procedures cost-effective for the treatment of Acute MI? How much better are they than medical treatment (e.g. thrombolytic drugs, etc) for it? When looking at the absolute decrease in hard outcomes (recurrent MI, death, re-stenosis, etc) there is an incremental benefit to mechanical treatment of perhaps 4-5%.

So we as a health care system spend billions on these treatments even though the overall benefit is modest. Why? 1-The litigous nature of the US--most physicians I know regularly practice what is called "defensive medicine" extra tests and treatments to forstall litigation and 2-If you are one of the 4-5% who benefits for mechanical treatment of MI, YOU think its the greatest thing since sliced bread--it saved YOUR life.

Other Western countries do practice some degree of health rationing. As Sally pointed out, the U.S. simply does this "under the table" as it were. Something, however has to be done. Considering the amount of GDP we spend on health care, it is simply an unsustainable system as it is.