Re: A little political humor...

In article <znu-5F87D5.00513922082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article <1124664142.015542.125270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> imouttahere@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > George Graves wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > There are many reasons to be against such a healthcare system, but I
> > > think one of the biggest reasons is that one cannot trust the government
> > > to give you what you want or need from such a system. Since Medicare
> > > went into effect back in the 1960's, it has been continuously cut back
> > > and in all ways attenuated ever year since. The current Medicare system
> > > bares little resemblance to the original plan. The same would happen to
> > > a single-pay heath-care system. Everyone would be at the mercy of the
> > > needs of the government. Presidents who ran on deficit cutting platforms
> > > would find such a plan easy pickings for places to cut government costs.
> > > Congress, needing funds for other purposes would similarly decimate the
> > > program over time. Eventually, we could end up with a program that
> > > covers next to nothing and with our present free market medical
> > > infrastructure gone, we'd have little to fall back on.
> >
> > Well, that looks like a catastrophic failure of democracy. But note
> > that single-payer is NOT government health care. The only
> > infrastructure that would be necessarily gutted under single payer
> > would be the health insurance segment, which is why they bring all
> > their guns and providing bull*** for you to believe and/or
> > regurgitate.
>
> Well, there are a other special interests that would be hurt by
> single-payer. For instance, pharmaceutical companies charge far more in
> the US than in most other developed countries. Why? They can get away
> with it. Insurance companies *like* expensive health care in general,
> because it gives them a reason to charge higher premiums, and the higher
> the premiums are the more they can skim off the top without people
> balking.
>
> A government system would probably negotiate more reasonable drug prices.
>
> I'm really surprised, though, that these special interests have managed
> to keep single-payer off the table so effectively. There are so many
> other interests -- including most other businesses -- that would benefit
> enormously from single-payer.
>
> Here's an interesting article:
> http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0507/16/autos-249603.htm
>
> Toyota is building a new plant in Canada, that will turn out 100K
> vehicles a year. Why didn't they chose the United States? One reason
> they cite is that they don't have to pay for health care in Canada --
> which saves them $4/hour/worker. That's *huge*. And the numbers are
> probably much bigger for small business.

One thing that saddens and angers me is that the government of this
country no longer works (I contemplated stopping right there, but...)
like our visionary Founding Fathers designed it. The government of the
people, by the people and for the people is now for big business and the
people are unimportant, it seems. Witness the fact that if it did work
for the people, and if, as you assert, a majority of Americans wanted
government-provided single-pay health care, there would be Congressional
and Senatorial committees and sub-committees, even now as I write this,
hammering out the details of a bill to provide that care. That nobody is
even thinking about such a bill speaks volumes about how firmly in the
pockets of pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and the rest
of the medical professions and institutions (AKA 'special Interests') is
our primary governing body. Even though, in this case, I'm on the side
that doesn't want to change the medical status quo, I still find it
disturbing that corporate interests can handily trump the Will Of The
People. This goes for other changes needed by the people but strenuously
opposed by commercial interests (like tax reform. It has been known for
years that a flat tax system or a system of Value Added Taxes (VAT) in
lieu of income taxes would be a much fairer way of collecting taxes from
the populace, but the IRS (naturally), the legal profession, and
companies like H&R Block are against it. Ergo, it never gets seriously
considered.) as well. When are Americans going to wake up to this and
demand their country back?
.

Loading