Government run healthcare provided to two different populations, under two separate programs, and they both provide suboptimal substandard healthcare.

You wait all day to be seen, and most of the time unless YOU know what’s wrong with you the dr doesn’t pay enough attention (they’re too busy trying to get through the crowds of patients) to really understand the issue and people get misdiagnosed or told they’re fine ALL THE TIME.

I would rather spend a LOT more money and get real health care than go back there again.

I think she’s saying that it is better than no health care at all…and no possibility of health care…ever.

beekiller on September 1, 2009 at 4:28 PM

So both of you are saying us poor black folks are too stupid to ever pull ourselves out of poverty, unless the good ol’ gubmint-man comes a helpin’.

We sure are lucky to have magnanimous white folks like you and AnninCa looking out for us.

If you’re actually a pastor…you should really look into a different career.

beekiller on September 1, 2009 at 4:21 PM

A pastor, or anybody else, that doesn’t, as gently as possible, tell somebody they are missing the truth, is doing them a disservice. I don’t think I could have been more gentle in letting her know she’s claiming the equivalent of saying the sky is under us and the ground is above.

With regard to the Indian reservation focus. I grew around Lumbees in the “Lost Colony” area of NC. I am considered Indian by a lot of my friends who say it is more a state of mind than skin color.

Having grown up around Lumbees and having worked in Alaska around the Inuit and Oregon around the Klamath when working aircraft, I can say that the Lumbees (who are discriminated against by their fellow tribes for not being full blooded) do better economically than those tribes on the Federal Govt. dole.

The Lumbees in NC have made major strides forward economically over my lifetime. They have never been accepted fully at the govt. feeding trough. And, while they are sore over it, they have a higher level of economic development than other tribes in general.

In comparison the Inuit et. al., who are generally poorly treated by whites in Alaska, fly into Anchorage periodically to pick up or spend govt. cheques. The govt. often provides lectures on Alcohol and drug abuse, high sugar diets, and smoking. Ironically, they often sit there and smoke and eat junk food during the lectures with the money from their govt. checks.

While all my Lumbee buddies would love to feed at the govt. trough, they are successful and tend to be very self reliant and do not want too much govt intrusion into their lives.

peter_griffin on September 1, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Typo : meant “because the low ROI nature of most government tasks would cause” instead of “because the low ROI nature of most government tasks would make cause”

hawksruleva on September 1, 2009 at 4:55 PM

In other words, my take is that there are very few government projects that the private enterprises will be willing to partake in, because the low ROI nature of most government tasks would make cause private companies (with fiduciary obligation to their shareholders) to reject them.

I grew up around Lumbees (area of where the Lost Colony got lost in NC). They are an unrecognized tribe but still get a lot of government services. The other tribes like the Cherokee don’t want to share the governmental pie with them. The other tribes correctly point out that lots of them are not full blooded. There are a lot of blond haired blue eyed Lumbees as well as those of mixed African descent.

The Lumbees are always sore over their lack of recognition, their lack of being catered to by the Federal Govt., their lack of being able to get a casino going… But, over the years, they have more adapted to modern society; and, while they have a more destructive lifestyle than the surrounding “white” population, I have seen an enourmous increase in their wealth and moderninity in my lifetime. I believe a large part of this came from them not being so catered too by the Federal Govt.

Saw the other side of the coin when I worked aircraft in Alaska. The Fed. Govt. used to fly the Inuit, et al. in for conferences in Anchorage periodically. It usually coincided with their flying in to pick up their checks. The Govt. would lecture them on the evils of alcohol, drug abuse, high sugar diet and smoking. They would sit there and smoke, drink and eat junk food through the lecture with money from their Govt. checks.

hawksruleva on September 1, 2009 at 4:55 PM

I would respond to your question with another question : can you point to a government job description which the private industry does (either exactly very closely) and yet achieves a significantly worse result? Please read my previous comment here so that we can be on the same page: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/01/indian-health-service-the-single-payer-system-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-2648505

Plus more should be done to decrease the unemployment rate that reaches 40 percent plus n some reservations.

Jacob Hammond on September 1, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Is that worse than Detroit?

However, I was responding to the generic claims that the government can do no good any situation, since I believe it is an unfair comparison in a lot of cases.

peter_griffin on September 1, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Other than brute-force projects (military operations, and roadbuilding, for example) what is the Uncle Sam good at?

This is a real concern. However, I don’t think we’ve ever treated this population even remotely fairly, so it’s an iffy comparison.

AnninCA on September 1, 2009 at 2:59 PM

So, our past mistreatment of Indians makes the current mistreatment of Indians ok?

Regardless of how Indians were treated in past centuries, is it reasonable to assume that a larger system for all Americans will work better than the smaller system run just for Indians, when the same government is in charge of it?

chemman on September 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM

I do not even know what is in the Congress bill, since it changes depending on roughly an hourly basis. However, I was responding to the generic claims that the government can do no good any situation, since I believe it is an unfair comparison in a lot of cases.

fbcmusicman on September 1, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Good point. I have talked to Tribal Leaders in the Cherokee Nation and the Navajo Nation. Both groups told me the same thing. The Government (U.S.) holds all reservation lands in trust for perpetuity. Since the land really isn’t theirs it is nearly impossible to get venture capital or loans to start businesses. Lack of business opportunity thus no job development leads to these high levels of poverty. Until the government gives them the land outright the problem will continue.
The Cherokee’s are trying to get around this by taking some of the profits from their casino’s and building a small business incubator. I sincerely hope they are successful in this endeavor.

Good Lord, why do I even bother going to work and paying my taxes if this is the future I’m purchasing?

F*ck

fbcmusicman on September 1, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Please take a chance to read my comments on this thread, I am sure we can have a meaningful debate …

peter_griffin on September 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM

What you are proposing is a different solution than what is currently being debated by Congress.

1.4 times higher

GAAAAACK!

I hate Hate HATE this terminology. It is at best ambiguous, and at worst misleading. Does it mean 1.4 times as much, or 2.4 times as much? Let me explain the difference:

Let’s say John has 10 cookies, but Mary has 14 cookies. She has 4 more cookies than John has. The number of cookies she has is 4 higher than the number John has. Got it? 4 more/higher. Well, how do you compare 4 to how many John has? It is 40% of what John has (aka .4), so you can say “Mary has 40% more cookies than John has”.

We could describe the number of cookies she has as “1.4 times as many as John has”. But we can’t say she has “1.4 times more” or “1.4 times higher”, because she only has “0.4 times” (4) more/higher than John has.

And don’t even get me started on “times less/fewer”. How can someone have “5 times less” or “10 times fewer” of something?