Text 1, 102 rader
Skriven 2009-09-11 04:51:28 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: (1/2) (1/2) Universal health insurance
==============================================
Replying to a message of Robert Bashe to Bob Ackley:

 RB> Bob Ackley wrote to Robert Bashe on Tuesday September 08 2009 at
 RB> 07:36:

 RB>>> Not to mention the freedom to financially gouge those in need of
 RB>>> care. I saw enough of that when I took care of my folks in the
 RB>>> States. Money, first, please - then maybe we'll have time to care
 RB>>> for your medical needs ;-/ Made me absolutely sick - and at times
 RB>>> damned mad.

 BA>> Contrary to the leftist propaganda spewing from proponents of the US
 BA>> government's attempt to take over the industry, people in this
 BA>> country are *not* being denied necessary care.  They may not (and
 BA>> probably don't) have the money to pay for it, but the care is
 BA>> provided.

 RB> Really? I have a different impression.

I'm not surprised, the left wing and its media allies have been lying about it
for years.

BTW, the current (September 21) issue of Forbes has an article in it about
health care in Germany.

 BA>> Most hospitals in this country - the vast majority, in fact - are run
 BA>> by religious organizations, primarily Catholic but including
 BA>> Lutheran, Methodist and Jewish systems. A number of hospitals in
 BA>> this country are owned by a local 'hospital authority,' which is
 BA>> usually at the county level, or by a local government, again usually
 BA>> a county.  Most state universities own and operate at least one
 BA>> hospital.

 RB> So neither the population nor the government has any responsibility
 RB> for health care - "let the charities spend _their_ money, I'll keep
 RB> mine". Sorry, that's an attitude I just can't share. Particularly the
 RB> extreme emphasis on _money_ in the health care "industry" in the
 RB> States is something I find distasteful. Naturally, adequate financing
 RB> is necessary, but when doctors and health care personnel constantly
 RB> hold out their hands before agreeing to lift a finger - and that's
 RB> something I've personally experienced with my parents - the system's
 RB> sick.

 BA>>>> The freedom to participate or not participate in a contract is
 BA>>>> included in that.

 RB>>> Which is a mistake, when you're referring to health care.

No it isn't.  There are a couple of religions in this country that specifically
refuse to have anything to do with the health care system or seek anything
other than spiritual treatment for any physical problems.  They are free to
do that.

 RB>>> That's
 RB>>> just not the same as buying a bushel of onions or serving people in
 RB>>> a restaurant. Sick or injured people _need_ health care, it's not a
 RB>>> matter of it "just being nice to have".

They need food worse, and nobody's (yet) trying to take over the food
distribution
system in this country.  You might be surprised just how quickly the local
public
water system will cut off your water supply if you miss a monthly bill payment
-
and you need water even more than you need food.

 BA>> Nope. It allows people to decide what they want - and what they want
 BA>> to pay for. Again, *nobody* in this country is denied needed care.

 RB> Again, I have my doubts. Not only my own experience, but also the
 RB> stories told by people living in the system are disconcerting.

 RB> However, I have to note that my personally ideal health care system
 RB> would be to legally require _everyone_ to have health insurance for a
 RB> certain minimum coverage (and make sure all health insurance is
 RB> accepted by all doctors, hospitals and health care workers), and to
 RB> subsidize those who are too poor to pay the premiums from taxes. The
 RB> choice of health insurance, however, would be left to the individual,
 RB> keeping competition among insurance companies active. And everyone
 RB> would have the option, if desired, to take out extended coverage. But
 RB> basic health care would be guaranteed for _everyone_.

 RB> In the States, I would adopt the German system of valuating medical
 RB> procedures (with an option for using a multiplier for difficult
 RB> cases) and making the valuations binding for all health care
 RB> personnel and hospitals. That would eliminate price competition among
 RB> doctors, and put the emphasis where it belongs: the quality of the
 RB> medical care.

 RB> The result would be a system of universal health care with more
 RB> freedom than in Germany and better coverage than presently in the
 RB> States.

 RB> But naturally, I don't believe for one minute that such a thing will
 RB> actually come to pass.

 BA>>>> With fewer providers available, particularly in rural areas, the
 BA>>>> problem of finding a doctor that will accept you as a patient (if
 BA>>>> you're over age 64) is getting worse.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
 * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)