On Sep 3, 11:19*am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 3, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote:



On Sep 3, 10:04*am, "Lu Powell" wrote:

wrote in message

.. .

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.

Who develops military weapons?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Private enterprises, who either contract with the government before or after
the fact.

Govt develops better weapons as a matter of life and death for
itself. *They have no incentive to develop better heart procedures for
92 yr old guys. *They would think that regular bypass technology is ok
and see no reason to spend good money for anything else. *History has
shown this to be true. *When the state tries to duplicate what
capitalism does, it fails.

hey froggie...guess what

ever hear of 1929? 2009? capitalism fails, too. it's failed to provide
a stable retirement income for american workers. it's failed to
provide cost of living increases, failed to provide affordable health
care...

As I said, govts provide good military for their own survival. I am
no advocate of libertarianism, it would not work. We need govt
regulations to dampen economic oscillations that would result in
"economic poles" (monopolies, depressions etc.) I believe that it is
up to workers to provide their own retirement, SS is just a safety net
to prevent starvation. Your failure to plan for the future is YOUR
problem.
I believe that routine health care should NOT be covered by any
insurance so that people will know what thye are really paying. An
HMO for routine care is simply pre-paid routine health care and tax
deductible medical savings accounts should cover that. To prevent HMO
from skewing the prices of routine health care, maybe "insurance" for
routine health care should be illegal. EVERYBODY should have
inexpensive catastrophic health insurance.
Govt should provide a safety net system that is inconvenient to use.
It should be inconvenient so that people will not rely on it instead
of pvt.
The idea is to preserve what is good about private health care while
providing a safety net that people will not always use.