From: "Robert G Lewis" 

That sounds like a real mess. Those who do not meet the criteria should be
off and those who knowingly put them on should have Gov sponsored health
care (Jail).

Bob Lewis

"Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
news:40c65947$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> To take a look at an example of "socialized medicine" in the
US, just look
> at Tennessee's TennCare program.  It's about to bankrupt the state.
Without
> proper controls and regulation, the whole TnCare system is wrought with
> fraud and abuse.  We have more "Unisurables" on the roles in
TN, than the
> state of California has.
>
> Whenever they try to "clean up the roles", there are
lawsuits filed to put
> the people back on. National average for number of prescriptions per year
is
> 3.something.  Those on TnCare AVERAGE 18.  There are well over 100,000
> people who do NOT have verifiable addresses that they actually LIVE in TN
> (P.O boxes), as well as almost that number who re-up every year claiming
> $0.00 income.
>
> Here, it's a big and total mess, and one huge political hot potato, both
for
> the Dems and Repubs.  It's become, by far, the biggest chunk of the state
> budget.  THIS is not the answer, either.  At least not how this one was
> done.  TN care was to be the "place of last resort".  There
were people
> ADVERTISING that you could come and apply for insurance through their
> office, to get your "Insurance denied" letter, so you could
go enroller in
> Tn Care at State Expense.  It was to be the safety net for the
un-insurable.
> There are people living in 300k homes, driving Mercedes, who are on Tn
Care,
> who obviously can afford private health insurance, but are on Tn Care, in
> the FREE category (There is a you-pay your part/premium status as well,
but
> everyone goes for the state paid version, and most get it). .
>
> --
> Glenn M.
>
>
> "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
> news:40c6237e{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > There our paths divert sharply.
> >
> > I know. 
> >
> > >I won't try to change your mind but I
> > > think socialism itself is a cancer on humanity.  This nation does not
> > > stand on such immoral principles.
> >
> > Socialism is no more immoral than capitalism, they're both just forms of
> > government, one, capitalism favors the haves, the other, socialism,
favors
> > everyone else.  To me it's very, very, *VERY* immoral to exclude people
> from
> > getting medical care whether they have the money or not.
> >
> > Not that I am note favoring going socialism all the way and there's no
> need
> > to do that. And, in fact, we already do it in other instances and term
it
> > essential services, basically, government sponsored/regulated
monopolies.
> > (cable, water, phone, ...)  Now where have deregulated these services,
the
> > cost has gone up and the quality of service hasn't, so guess which I
like
> > better...
> >
> > - Bob Comer
> >
> >
> >
> > "Richard B."  wrote in message
> > news:7o7cc0drrjmr26q67nv1i9di9lravoltfe{at}4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:19:51 -0400, "Robert Comer"
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I truly wouldn't be averse to socializing
> > > >the whole health care industry anyway.
> > >
> > > There our paths divert sharply.  I won't try to change your mind but I
> > > think socialism itself is a cancer on humanity.  This nation does not
> > > stand on such immoral principles.
> > >
> > > - Richard
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5