Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!internal1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s53.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Skeptic" 
Newsgroups: alt.cancer.support, alt.support.diabetes, fidonet.diabetes,
 misc.health.diabetes, talk.politics.medicine
References: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Subject: Re: Single Payer Universal Health Care
Lines: 44
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.217.222.233
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 01:19:56 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 01:19:56 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cancer.support:813
 alt.support.diabetes:314492 fidonet.diabetes:348 misc.health.diabetes:290798
 talk.politics.medicine:99323


"mike gray"  wrote in message
news:qoIsc.26623$fF3.683423@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Proconsul wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but you have it backwards. IF single payer is approved, prices,
i.e.,
> > TAXES, will go way up and quality of service along with availability of
> > service will go way down as care is rationed to lower costs......that's
the
> > way it's worked everywhere else in the world where it's been tried.
>
> No argument there.
>
> > Our system, with all it's faults, is infinitely superior to any other
system
> > so far devised by anyone.....and we need to focus on what we KNOW
> > works.....a free market with competition and no government interference
is
> > the key to lower costs and higher quality care - that's the way it's
always
> > worked whenever it's been tried.....
>
> But the current system leaves out a substantial (1/6) portion of the
> population. The universal care argument is that at least basic health
> services should be a right, not a perq of the fortunate.

In order to advance the discussion to a more meaningful point, what are the
actual stats... once you exclude those who have an income, could afford
health insurance, but opt out of it because they are young, have other
bills, saving for a house, etc etc etc?  That is not a small group.  Now, a
point that I think most of us here could agree on - even those against a
single payer platform I think - exclude all children as, imo, they deserve
coverage and should  not be left hanging because of the incompetency of
their parents.

What are we then left with?  I'd be very curious to know if anyone has some
valid estimates on that.  Now, of those that would be left, any mental
health workers here who could lend an opinion as to how many of those really
belong in some sort of a psychiatric institution?

Some thoughts to consider.