"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:59:27 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I don't think there's anyone here who's in favor of that. Still, we
should
be able to ensure that all are insured.

Many of us would not have a problem with that proposition if "insured"
meant
"insured." It's one thing to protect against unanticipated catastrophic
costs. It's entirely another thing to prepay the costs of routine
services
that everyone will incur. Unfortunately, when most people talk about
"insuring" in the context of medical expenses, they're talking about
prepayment, and not insurance.


So, you think it's prudent to wait until there's a catastrophic situation,
rather than pay for the cost of preventative care?

I think it's a foolish policy that puts the cost to the individual of
predictable small but recurring services at next to nothing. If you stand
on
the corner handing out candy bars for free, you shouldn't be surprised to
see candy bar consumption increase beyond the optimal level.


What's a foolish policy? Preventative care or exclusively catastrophic care?


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com