-=> Quoting Bucky Carr to Robert Keith <=-
 
 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.
 BC> 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.
 BC> Profit is definable.  Neither the Canadian or German systems provide
 BC> limitless care.  The "profit" they realize by limiting the care of one
 BC> may be used on the care for another or research or any of a myriad of
 BC> other expenditures I can't begin to think of.  The magnitude of the
 BC> "profit" is immaterial - it falls under the same rediculous argument
 BC> as to what is the proper "minimum wage"; if $5.00/hr is proper and
 BC> just, then why not isn't $100/hour more proper and just?
A typical Republican/libertarian specious argument. The point I was trying
to make is that it is fallacious to think that only government run systems
such as the Canadian, German, or whatever, are the only ones that limit
health care. HMO's in this country, at times, severely limit health care
primarily because of the cost of the impending care. There are some things
only a government can do. Health care is one of them. Now the Republicans
are touting health care reform that looks surprisingly like the reform that
Hillery Clinton's group came up with. The health care nonsystem in the US
needs drastic reform, and IMO, a single payer system is the only war to go.
Your statement, "The magnitude of the 'profit' is immaterial...." typifies
the greed of some people. Tell me why do we have anti-trust laws?
 BC> Is your complaint that someone in this country actually appears to
 BC> make a "profit" on someone else's misery or misfortune (illness)?  That
 BC> actually occurs anywhere and anytime *anyone* is paid anything for
 BC> providing health care services.
No! My complaint is that "profit" many times is the driver instead of the
needs of the patient.
 BC> Though you may express personal revulsion at anyone's unwillingness to
 BC> voluntarily provide for another's health care needs, mandating by law
 BC> that they involuntarily provide same doesn't moralize that service.
Neither does turning health care over to the greed of insurance companies
"moralize" the service.
 BC> Preaching that "we as a nation" owe some duty to the masses is a cry
 BC> in the wild.  What duty do *I* owe or do *you* owe outside of that
 BC> borne of religious fervor?
Just what in the hell has "religious fervor" have to do with providing
health care? And preaching as you do, that "we as a nation" should not give
a damn about our fellow citizens speaks volumes about your
self-aggrandizement.
... Fantasy is my shelter from an insane world.
--- FLAME v1.1
(1:3603/570)
---------------