Text 3387, 69 rader
Skriven 2006-07-05 21:06:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3860.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Kurt Ullman to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <kurtullman-2B3567.09091905072006@news.west.earthlink.net>
@REPLY: <kurtullman-7FDE7D.12354502072006@news.west.earthlink.net>
In article <35ula25dsrl52p32ktvcusr192mg6s1d4a@4ax.com>,
 Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3 Jul 2006 19:23:20 -0700, "ravend03x" <rkimd3@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Ideologically, it does make sense, but the majority of stakeholders
> >(medicare/medicaid, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, for
> >profit hospitals, etc) have some choice words about universal health
> >care...
> 
> That's a good sign that it's long overdue.
> 
> The facts suggest that universal health care would be better on every
> account -- better care, care for more people, lower individual cost,
> lower overall cost -- except the profits of insurance and drug
> companies companies.

  Longer waits, lower quality of life scores, fewer choices in 
treatment, higher levels of disability (all shown by studies of Canada 
and/or British systems w/in last five years). The other systems are by 
no means all sweetness and light.. when you get sick..just like ours. 
Different set of trade off. 

> 
> >> > The big problem I have with, say, a government run health care system is
> >> > that....well...the government would be running the health care system. 
> >> > ;-)
> 
> >Ain't that the truth... the sheer inertia is in itself mind-boggling!
> 
> Government wouldn't run the health care system under any proposal I'm
> aware of. It would merely handle the insurance. And consider this:
> Medicare is much more efficient than private plans, and /already/ sets
> insurance rates.
> 
      But they aren't more efficient and they set rates that are lower 
than private insurances. Also, as we are seeing in Canada and Britain 
and Germany, when budgets come from government, they rise and fall based 
on political consideration.  Canada is saying that they will have to 
spend several billion dollars on maintenance and new buildings because 
the previous administrations (even up north it is always previous 
administrations) neglected capital improvement needs. Also, I have never 
seen EVERY nurse (all 5,144) in a state submit their resignations over 
lack of pay increases as happened in BC in 2001. 

> 
> Also, it's complex and hard to understand, the government was banned
> from negotiating with the drug companies over prices, and elderly
> people were banned from buying cheap drugs in Canada!

  But the individual plans were free to negotiate to their little hearts 
content. Humana for its plan, Anthem for their, etc.  They were banned 
from buying drugs over the internet, they can still go to Canada and buy 
them. Actually I always thought it hypocritical for the Dems to make 
such a big fuss about it, since over the Internet there was no way to 
know who you were buying from and even what you were really buying. But 
I am sure when the first batch of bad medicine made it in, it would have 
been teh FDA's fault..
                                                                               
                     
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)