On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:07:18 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

But no surprise there.
Omelet = (eggs + broken)
Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know.
The answer might save me some time.

In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :)

Let's just say that a business writing course erased most of my Henry
James inclinations. Being a lit major, I thought it would be a waste
of time. Surprise!

Yes - I read the whole thing.

The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not
in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons.

If you start with the premise that the end goal is that everybody will
get personally "affordable" quality health care, there are many routes
to it. There can be variation in some of the perks, such as a private
room, etc, if you pay for that. I believe Germany and Japan - perhaps
others - have that.
But if you don't agree with that premise, there's no sense even
talking about it.
The health care providers and insurance companies are not gov staffed.
Since this debate started there has been plenty of evidence that
Europe and Japan provide equal or better health care than the U.S.
at less cost.
When you say "government run health care" it raises red flags for me
already.
Nobody is talking about that, and in fact the health care industry is
private and capitalistic, except for the military, prisons, and some
state/county hospitals. That's my understanding, anyway.
Even the "exalted" Medicare sees little interference by the gov except
for billing issues.
So the first step is to clear that up.
BTW, I still bear a grudge against the Navy Captain who pulled my
perfectly good molar in Naples, Italy.
THAT was gov health care.

I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class
and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue
either.

I would like to hear your views.

--Vic