On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:21:17 -0400, "mmc" wrote:


"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
m...

If you are indigent, and turn up at a for-profit hospital with a serious
condition, the best you can hope for is short-term stabilization, the
cheapest course of treatment, and a short supply of the cheapest drugs.
You are not going to see the high-dollar docs, either.

Conservatives have been perpetuating this myth of "they have to take you"
for decades, as if that means the indigent will get good care. Well, they
don't...they get the band-aid level of care for their chronic conditions.



I think the concern is that with a government regulated and mandated
health
care system, the quality of *all* care will trend to that which you have
described.

Before you jump, understand this: Universal health care is something I
support.
It's one of the few liberal leanings that I have. But, here's one problem
as I see it:

Regardless of how fair and standardized health care becomes, there will
always be
more expensive doctors and optional treatments/services for those who can
afford to pay for them.

When it comes to life or death, how can anyone rationalize that those who
can afford
non-standardized treatments deserve to benefit from them while others can
not?

The debate will start all over again.

Eisboch

I agree with you on universal health care Eisboch but I really don't have a
problem with someone else being able to afford something I can't, wether
it's better health care or a steak and lobster dinner.
I drive a 6 yo pickup. Dodge not Cadillac. I don't begrudge any driving
newer/nicer cars.
That's life


Well, you're obviously not Harry, jps, or Jim Hertvik! :)
--

"You may give it away, but your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it."
John H