Deval Patrick, Newt Gingrich, Mike Bloomberg and Andrea Mitchell: America the Next Decade

Posted by Kendall Harmon

MR. GREGORY: Well, let, let's talk about the status quo, Mayor Bloomberg. Something you've thought a lot about is how much do we spend on individuals in this country for health care, and what's the result on the other side? What's life expectancy? And let's just put these numbers up here, because they're pretty striking. The United States spends more than most other countries, by a whole lot, $7200-plus per individual. And yet, the life expectancy is 78, far younger than countries that spend far less per person.

MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (I): Well, we're unwilling to ask the question, what we're getting for our money? And I think both sides of that graph you just showed really talk about it. We are spending more than we can afford. We will go bankrupt if we keep increasing medical costs at the rate we've been doing it. And life expectancy, arguably the primary purpose of government is to increase life expectancy, and we are not doing that. Instead, we talk about other things, some laudable, some desperately that we have to do. And I will say, I've given the president a lot of credit for taking on the issue; but it's Congress that's writing this legislation, and they are not willing to go near the things that will contain costs, which is immigration reform, tort reform, asking the question of whether or not we can afford certain tests and whether they really are cost beneficial. And we are not willing to work on the preventive things, fighting obesity, smoking, those kinds of things, or crime in the streets, which is another big influence on our life expectancy. But we're just not willing to talk those tough issues.

Read it all (start toward the bottom of the page).

Filed under: * Culture-Watch • Health & Medicine • --The 2009 American Health Care Reform Debate • * Economics, Politics • Politics in General • Office of the President • President Barack Obama • * International News & Commentary • America/U.S.A.

3 Comments
Posted December 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Sarah wrote:

This was a pleasure to read—mainly to observe amongst the majority liberal voices the chattering inanity, denial and general cluelessness in the conversation.  One—of many—samples, is this one from Andrea Mitchell, about the horrors of the conservatives in our country:

MS. MITCHELL:  What I noticed when I was out covering Sarah Palin when she was out on the book tour, at 4 and 5 and 6 in the morning on freezing days, when people had been out for hours, camped out with their kids because they wanted to see her, they are so hungry for a symbol for anyone who can give them answers.  And in this case, she was just signing books.  But there’s an anger out there, and I have not seen it since my very first campaign, which was 1968 and George Wallace.  And that is the angry populism which is not fact-based, it’s just furious at everybody; angry at Democrats, at Republicans.  The tea party has higher numbers in our last NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll than either of the other traditional parties.  And that is what I think this news cycle which you referred to is feeding into, and that is what does frighten me.  This spirit of America is so large and embracing, but there is an angry subtext because of economic dislocation that is very, very worrisome.

Of course . . . 1) the anger is fact-based—the group merrily chatted about one of the facts, which involves the State takeover of yet another industry, 2) it’s not “furious at everybody”—it’s furious at the incredibly incompetent collectivist leadership we have in *both* parties, and 3) no, it’s not because of “economic dislocation”—tee hee.  But that’s a nice try at mis-direction and blame-casting.

The only thing I agree with in that paragraph is that yes, collectivists should be “afraid” for their grasp on political power.

December 27, 8:02 pm | [comment link]
2. Sick & Tired of Nuance wrote:

And life expectancy, arguably the primary purpose of government is to increase life expectancy, and we are not doing that.

Ok, I am fairly certain that that is not in the Constitution.  If it were, then there could be no Army, now could there be?  Oh, and that doesn’t really jibe well with the culture of death (abortionists and euthanasia enthusiasts) elitists in the Republicrat amalgam either.

It’s dashed difficult to determine if the folks spouting this stuff for our consumption are attempting to patronize us or if they are really just that dim witted.  Either way, it is a “no sale” as far as I am concerned.

December 28, 1:43 am | [comment link]
3. azusa wrote:

“Ok, I am fairly certain that that is not in the Constitution.”
I think you’ll find it in the penumbra.

December 28, 3:45 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): At Tiny Rates, Saving Money Costs Investors

Previous entry (below): Fort Worth’s Episcopalian split tops Area’s top 2009 religion news

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)