RK> A typical Republican/libertarian specious argument....
 RK> There are some things only a government can do. Health care is one of
 RK> them.
Talk about specious argument...
 RK> The health care nonsystem in the US needs drastic reform, and
 RK> IMO, a single payer system is the only war to go.
A Freudian slip, perhaps?
 RK> Your statement, "The magnitude of the 'profit' is immaterial...."
 RK> typifies the greed of some people. Tell me why do we have anti-trust
 RK> laws?
All laws exist to protect one or more defined groups, almost always at
the expense of one or more other defined groups.  I offer you the
McKerron-Ferguson Act as an example of heinous silliness.  Are you
prepared to say that all anti-trust legislation is good?  If so, a
pissing contest could easily ensue.
 RK> No! My complaint is that "profit" many times is the driver instead of
 RK> the needs of the patient.
Who decides the needs of the patient?  Are you familiar with the
pre-COBRA legislation which directed that the *only* determiner of what
constitutes an emergency was the patient?  Any surprise that the cost of
Medicaide zoomed through the roof when the number of providers accepting
Medicaide patients fell constantly so the patients presented to the ERs
for care?
Take what I do for a living, for example (anesthesia).  Females of all
species have been birthing offspring without benefit of anesthesia
intervention for millenia.  Are you ready to say that a person's merely
demanding such additional care is grounds for providing it?
 RK> Neither does turning health care over to the greed of insurance
 RK> companies "moralize" the service.
No one is being forced to engage the payor services of an "insurance
company".  Besides, one doesn't moralize a postulate.  One can surely
demoralize a situation, however.  This is akin to the fact that it is
impossible for a government to raise everyone's life experiences to that
of the wealthy but it is quite possible for a government to lower
virtually everyone's situation to that of poverty.
 RK> Just what in the hell has "religious fervor" have to do with providing
 RK> health care? And preaching as you do, that "we as a nation" should not
 RK> give a damn about our fellow citizens speaks volumes about your
 RK> self-aggrandizement.
ROFL.
You make my argument for me, even if by employing pendulous swing of
reason.
I say that I owe you no duty whatsoever.  You say that my saying such
bespeaks raising my importance over that of others (you, for example).
I've got news for you.  Number One is always more important than any
other.  If you aren't taking care of Number One first, then I don't want
you trying to take care of me under any conditions.  The person who has
self-decayed to the point where self-importance is unimportant can't
possibly provide for others what he won't provide for himself.
It is fairly apparent to me that we will likely never agree on the route
to improving the system.  My first and foremost requirement would be the
utter and complete removal of the government, which hands down has
caused the enormous increase in the cost of the system thus far, from
any hand in the healthcare system at all.  From your above statement, I
take it that the state should be the provider, 100%, in your estimation.
We are worlds apart.
PS - are you a healthcare provider?
--- PPoint 2.00
---------------