RK> There is no such a thing as a "free" lunch. Of course, it has to be
 RK> paid for through taxes. The US is the most undertaxed industrialized
 RK> nation in the world.
So?
 RK>  Take a look at Germany, for example. To imply
 RK> that the US HMOs are equivalent to the Canadian or German system is
 RK> just plain incorrect. They are not. They are profit driven and curtail
 RK> many types of health care for profits.
Profit is definable.  Neither the Canadian or German systems provide
limitless care.  The "profit" they realize by limiting the care of one
may be used on the care for another or research or any of a myriad of
other expenditures I can't begin to think of.  The magnitude of the
"profit" is immaterial - it falls under the same rediculous argument as
to what is the proper "minimum wage"; if $5.00/hr is proper and just,
then why not isn't $100/hour more proper and just?
Is your complaint that someone in this country actually appears to make
a "profit" on someone else's misery or misfortune (illness)?  That actually
occurs anywhere and anytime *anyone* is paid anything for providing
healthcare services.
Though you may express personal revulsion at anyone's unwillingness to
voluntarily provide for another's healthcare needs, mandating by law
that they involuntarily provide same doesn't moralize that service.
Preaching that "we as a nation" owe some duty to the masses is a cry in
the wild.  What duty do *I* owe or do *you* owe outside of that borne of
religious ferver?
--- PPoint 2.00
---------------