"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:48:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:02:01 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:36:25 -0700, Bart wrote:


What's the problem with government health systems?

What's more important, continued support for a private health care
system,
or American jobs? It seems
to be overlooked that our health care system costs upwards of 15% GDP,
while those countries with
universal health care spend @10% GDP. That extra 5% is the reason is
the
reason our automotive
sector is fleeing north, expanding operations in Canada, while
curtailing
them here. In a global economy,
5% extra cost puts us at a considerable economic disadvantage. Ignore
that at your peril.

All manufacturing is fleeing, not just automotive, and health care
cost is a major driver. I know, I've been there. But universal
health care is not the answer.

Just recently, at a medical school close to my home, the state
legislature mandated to the board of higher education that the number
of seats be increased. There is a very large supply of eligible
candidates, many don't get in. It is the AMA's very sucessful, long
standing attempt to control the supply side, keeping fee schedules
very high.

That's just job losses. Let's not consider the lower life expectancy
and
higher infant mortality our health
system provides.

Our health care system doesn't have anything to do with this. It is a
matter of lifestyle choices. Want a lower infant mortality rate? how
about a lower rate of teen mothers on drugs and alcohol. Want a
longer life expectancy? How about everyone get off your buns and get
some exercise and drop the high fat, high sugar diet.

Frank
Who runs 36 miles a week and at 60 has no aging diseases. No
diabetes, no high blood pressure, no cardiovascular issues, no joint,
ligament, or cartilage issues.


Universal health care is available in all modern cultures except ours. I'm
sure we're glad you're healthy and can afford health care, but no one has
a
contract with God.


And you miss the entire point. Adopting healthier lifestyles has
nothing to do with having a contract with God. It just diminishes the
need for the" healthcare" that we have come to believe is an
entitlement in this country, that is we can eat horribly, be obese,
smoke, lead completely sedentary lives, and if pregnant, take drugs,
alcohol and smoke, and we or our newborn will remain healthy, and if
that doesn't work, someone else has to pay to make it happen.

Anything the government has ever gotten involved in that requires cost
control and reasonable product or service has been a disaster.

Frank

And you've missed the point as well... all of your attempts to remain
healthy are great, but that has little to do with the money required to save
your life or give you a decent quality of life if you get sick and don't
have insurance. The VA insurance is a great example of gov't run healthcare
that for the most part works. They can negotiate prices for drugs, they
serve a vast community, mostly quite well.

You're very quick to say that healthcare is an entitlement, as though it
isn't needed, not really. It is needed and that's demonstrated by the
millions who are uninsured, pushing up the costs for those who are. It's
demonstrated by people's inability to get affordable insurance that sticks
with them, rather than changes with their employer. A child of four getting
cancer is not a life-style problem, but gods forbid if that child's parents
couldn't afford decent health insurance.

We're very, very quick to talk about "freedom," but we sure are slow to talk
about decency when it comes to our own.

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