Re: Obamarama and National Health Care

On Jun 1, 6:17 pm, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<pear...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:00ae9ee3-5b28-4637-8685-bc1ecc281dd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 1, 3:38 pm, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



<pear...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:42eda4eb-9756-4617-87cd-a0dc31becd4b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 1, 1:51 pm, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<shuura...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:6185bfa1-1b8e-4ccf-9612-6684faf091ac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

People are waiting much longer, are receiving lower quality
treatment, and far more of them are being *denied* treatment
altogether. The survival rates are lower in almost every major
category; as is the reported quality of life.

only if you pay attention only to right wing propaganda.

The numbers are clear, Hal - the fact that you don't like them doesn't
make them propaganda.

So how exactly is this better?

it would be better if you understood the truth, and not one fed to you
by the CEOs of insurance, pharms, and medical systems companies that
are making billions a year off the fact that you are too stupid to
understand what a single payer system entails.

You seem to be a little confused about what the word "truth" means.

The numbers are clear. Countries that have adopted nationalized
health care have seen longer waiting periods for treatment, poorer
quality of treatment, and higher instances of people being turned
away. They have also seen lower success rates and lower quality of
life in almost every possible category.

What a single payer system entails is a monopoly for health care. It
entails a massive, inefficient, and completely uncaring bureaucracy
that knows that you have no choice but to accept whatever they decide
you deserve, and when they decide you deserve it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a dilemma. Is it better for some to have good health care while
others
have little or none? Or is it better for all to have mediocre care?
Which
is
best for society. People complain of rationing of health care but we
have
rationing now. It is based on cost: those who have insurance get good
care,
those who don't get little or none.

We do know the US pays more for health care which is unevenly
distributed
with poorer results by some criteria while Euorpean countries have
universally distributed care which by some measures produces better
health
overall for a lesser cost that the US pays. It is a dilemma.

It's not a dilemma at all.

We don't care that some people need to bum rides while others have
whole garages full of supercars do we? Not in the same way we care
about health care.

Pierre

----------------------------------------------
I put health care in a somewhat different category than fast cars. To use
your example, this is an instance of rationing on the basis of price which
is what we do for health care. Take care

Let me put it this way: in a Socialized system the pool of money to
fund health care is fixed and finite.  This pool of money can purchase
a fixed and finite amount of health services or equipment.  To dole
this out "fairly" requires rationing of some kind.

This is not true in a private system that operates on market forces.

Pierre
*****************************************************

Assuming you agree that  those who cannot affford care should not have it.
That is what pure market forces will provide. Take care

I think that "those who cannot afford it should not have it" is fairer
than "you cannot have it even if you can afford it", which is what we
have in Canada.

Pierre
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FDA approves Pfizer nerve pain drug ~ Lyrica
    ... It implicitly assumes that treatment ... >> quality of care indicators for stroke, for men and for the frail ... Assessing the Care of Vulnerable Elders. ... >> BRIEFINGS TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: WorldCon 2006 (was: The Mohammud Cartoons)
    ... Observe that you have changed the subject from elective treatment to ... Same point applies to elective care. ... do not like the Canadian health care system all that much. ... HMO costs and co-pays, as well as the money that USians would ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: An announcement
    ... They just pass costs on. ... the payer of health care costs is, ... through higher prices, higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, higher ...
    (alt.vacation.las-vegas)
  • Vulnerable Populations More Likely to Delay or Forgo Treatment
    ... Vulnerable Populations More Likely to Delay or Forgo Treatment ... New data tracking the health care habits of Americans highlighted ... gaping holes in the country's health care system -- and who is falling ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: OT Health Care and Illegal Residents
    ... I support the house version of border security first. ... There is a federal law about providing emergency care. ... They provide some reimbursement...but not the full cost. ... This is one aspect of rising health care and rising insurance costs. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)