On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:12:45 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 1, 12:25?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:57 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
The current US system is also highly rationed. The rich have access to
the best available care. The poor have no to very-limited access.

I love comments like this.

Unreal.

Being able to access health care only at the emergency room of certain
hospitals constitutes very limited access. I can't imagine why my
comment about the poor is unreasonable.

I only going to say this.

I pay a staggering amount of money every year for a treatment for my
particular cluster of ailments related to a screwed up immune system.
Those same treatments for similar diseases for people who are in
halfway houses or unable to pay for whatever reason are free and paid
for by the state of CT and MA.

I'm not exactly sure, but it seems to me that's not rationing.

I will say this - the healthcare system is screwed up, but the
solution isn't single payer system. The solution is to shoot all the
ambulance chasers who create untenable situations for physicians of
all types who would be willing to provide care on a reduced basis in
open clinics on a part time basis if only they didn't have to worry
about paying outrageous premiums for ommission/commission and
malpractice insurance.

With respect to access, if you are indigent and unable to pay,
hospitals are required to provide care by law. That's what the
problem is. The cost of running a hospital is considerable (for much
the same reasons I might add) and placing a obligation to provide care
under all circumstances is killing their ability to provide services.
The solution is to indemnify physicians who can, and often will, run
clinics for those whose ability to pay is nonexistant or limited.