Whilst masticating on , James Bradley (1:134/77)
wrote to Alan Hess:

AH>> I know we have an awful lot of uninsured people who get lousy 
AH>> health care.  I do agree with the columnist that the single payer
AH>>  system is better, but there should be a way to take care of the
AH>> currently uninsured as well (besides emergency rooms, which
AH>> wind up costing the insured in higher premiums and longer
AH>> waits when they need to access the ER.)

AH>> welcome (1:261/1000)

JB> I'm sorry, I thought you were posting from Canada.

No, sir, I'm here in Bawlmer, Merlind.  :-)

JB> For as long as our politicians have been defending our health 
JB> care system, I have maintained there is a service level for the 
JB> masses, and one for the privileged. Sure, the bum on the street 
JB> will receive a procedure that a wealthy person would, but the 
JB> discretion of the doctors are still likely to favour the later. 
JB> And likely for a good reason.

The insured also are more likely to have health problems prevented by
regular doctor visits, which saves money.  The uninsured don't have that
prevention, so their winds up costing all of us more than if they were
insured.

JB> But what pesters me, is the same politician that has been 
JB> promoting, and defending a privatized introduction of services to 
JB> our province, was guilty of being one of the most blatant abusers 
JB> of his power in an emergency room. If you are a sports figure, 
JB> there is NO WAY he would end up in my situation. If you were a 
JB> lawyer, there would be no chance for being treated in a physicians 
JB> office with disrespect...

JB> I'll defend our health care system, as doing rather well for 
JB> being on a constant poverty footing. Could it improve? With out a 
JB> doubt! What system couldn't? Could the US improve? It would depend 
JB> who you ask, I suspect. 

I suspect you're right about that.  *adh*

--- Msged/2 6.0.1