BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 07:04 PM

Does anyone have any figures for how much of the money spent on private heath care insurance in the States gets through to the people actually providing the health care?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 06:52 PM

Greg F: You know the history of the U.S. Postal service? I'm impressed!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 06:41 PM

Which kind of makes them socialists, if we accept their definition of "socialism".

No, Carol, it makes them jackasses. And they don't HAVE a coherent definition of "socialism".

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Rowan
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 06:14 PM

Which kind of makes them socialists, if we accept their definition of "socialism".

"Socialise the losses and privatise the profits."

Quite a common practice.

Cheers, Rowan.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 06:02 PM

"If the Postal Service had been operated more efficiently,there would be no Fed Express or UPS today."

To echo Carol C and Greg F.....nonsense!

The Postal Service is required to do stuff that UPS is not. UPS etc. do ONLY that which turns a profit. With Email taking the place of *gasp* writing letters, most 'mail' is advertising circulars and bills & bill payments, and even those are being done more & more online.

Many things...from AMTRAC to USPS will face decisions as to the amount of subsidy they get. NO easy answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 05:59 PM

Yes, since Ronald Reagan destroyed America government workers have fared better than anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 05:48 PM

I've noticed, though, that a lot of people with that mindset have benefited greatly from holding government jobs and receiving government benefits and services, like our anti-government friend here in this thread. Which kind of makes them socialists, if we accept their definition of "socialism".

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 05:30 PM

Not at all, McGrath.

Our boy's simply a died-in-the-wool Ronnie Reagan Ayn Rand Franklin Delano Roosevelt hating anti-tax "Government Is The Enemy" and "Government Is The Problem Not The Solution" zealot.

No reality need apply.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 05:14 PM

Not just Britain, Doug. Every wealthy or near wealthy country in the world, and a good few poor countries, have managed to organise a system of universal health care. Various ways of doing it, but the bottom lien is that they manage to do it. You appear to think that the USA is uniquely incapable of doing that.

"No we can't.."

I'm not clear if the assumption is that the US government is intrinsically inefficient in a way that other countries' governments aren't, or that there is an inevitable pressure to reduce spending on public services to keep taxes lower.

I think you underestimate your country, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 05:11 PM

And I'm guessing that poster also benefits from government run health care in the form of Medicare.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 05:10 PM

I'd be willing to bet money the poster criticizing the Postal Service doesn't use any of the private carriers to send their letters and other mail, either (non-parcel mail). I bet that person relies on the US Postal Service to deliver their mail.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:58 PM

If the Postal Service had been operated more efficiently, there would be no Fed Express or UPS today. Ditto, the public school system.

This, aside from being arrant nonsense, displays a profound profound ignorance of the history of the U.S. Postal System, of the history and development of private delivery firms like UPS (some of which pre-dated the establishment of the U.S. Post office)and most certainly of the history of education - both public and private - in the U.S.

Business as usual for Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:53 PM

Whether or not most people in the US are satisfied with their current health care (and even if we accept the figures from the Rasmussen poll, 48 percent is not a majority - it would be more accurate to say that 52 percent of those surveyed do not believe our current health care is good), is totally irrelevant, since those who do like the coverage they have will eventually lose it if Obama's health care proposals fail.

That interview with the insurance industry insider was very enlightening. He said (and current trends back him up on this) that the industry is moving in the direction of forcing everyone to accept coverage that is more like the HSA in that they force the insured to shoulder a much larger percentage of the financial burden of their insurance and their care.

So those who think they can just sit back and be happy with the coverage they have and not worry about anything are mistaken. In the not too distant future, they're going to be in the same boat as those of us who currently cannot afford adequate insurance/health care.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:52 PM

"If the federal government establishes a health program in competition with the 1200 or so private insurance companies in the US, it will drive those companies out of business."
Could not that concern be addressed with "GOOD RIDDANCE"?
DougR, we in countries having universal healthcare provided for all have tried to address your concerns but you seem determined to argue for companies that are fleecing both you and your fellow countrymen.
There is none so blind as those who refuse to see!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:50 PM

"Everyone" who would benefit most certainly includes Dougie

Not in Douggies alternative world, McGrath.

"Remember that perception is not reality, that opinion, no matter how widely held, is not fact... [The United States] moved into an era in which stupidity was celebrated if it managed to sell itself well, if it succeeded, if it made people money. That is "glorifying ignorance". We moved into an era in which the reflexive instincts of the Gut were celebrated at the expense of reasoned, informed opinion. To this day, we have a political party�the Republicans�who, because it embraced a "movement of Conservatism" that celebrated anti-intellectualism is now incapable of conducting itself in any other way. That has profound political and cultural consequences, and the truly foul part about it was that so many people engaged in it knowing full well they were peddling poison."

Charles P. Pierce's Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free (Doubleday, 2009) is illuminating regarding a certain mindset.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:36 PM

Personally, I think the Post Office does a great job. I can't imagine having to rely on UPS or FedEx for sending letters. The cost would be prohibitive, and the wait time for delivery is not all that different.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:26 PM

Doug--
"It's a privately operated business and they evidently offer a needed service some folks are willing to pay good money for. It's a question of supply and demand."

That's the whole point. If private insurance offer a needed service some folks are willing to pay good money for" they'll survive. And the folks that don't have or are not willing to pay the money, a National service, like the "inefficient" Post Office will have to suffice. A helluva lot better than the nothing that millions are living with.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:25 PM

The Rassmussen Poll out today reports that 48% of Americans believe our current health care is good. Only 19% declared that they thought it was poor.

Who is actually being surveyed? Many poor cannot afford home phone. Many work long and unsocial hours.

Who was surveyed?

Rasmussen And Gallup: Skewing Obama's Approval?

One can make statistics say anything one wants.

snips from the Washington Independent

The question, the result, and the carnival barker spin-all are trademarks of Rasmussen Reports, a pollster that has become ubiquitous in the conversation of Republicans and conservative pundits. It is not a partisan polling firm, and it is not hired to ask partisan questions the way that, for example, John Zogby was hired to test the mocking anti-Obama questions of a conservative radio host. Rasmussen is influential because its carefully crafted questions that produce answers that conservatives like — 59 percent of voters agreeing with Ronald Reagan's view of big government, a 10-point plurality of voters trusting their economic judgment over President Obama's — are bolstered by highly accurate campaign polling. The result is that polls with extremely favorable numbers for Republican stances leap into the public arena every week, quickly becoming accepted wisdom.

.....Scott Rasmussen is well aware of how Republicans use his polling to make their arguments. "Republicans right now are citing our polls more than Democrats because it's in their interest to do so," he said on Monday. "I would not consider myself a political conservative — that implies an alignment with Washington politics that I don't think I have."
But in the early days of his polling firm, when it was named Rasmussen Research, Rasmussen balanced a cold analysis of politics and consumer opinion with advocacy for some conservative views.

.....Since then, Rasmussen's business has boomed, aided in no small part by those "newspaper" questions that are blasted out to reporters and frequently buck up the Republican spin of the week.

Rasmussen. The only poll that matters - the whole story here


hmmmm! Not a pollster I would trust.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:15 PM

Insurance companies don't have to provide good services to stay in business. All they have to do is provide needed services, even if they do it very badly, and be the only game in town. Which is the situation we have today.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 04:05 PM

Dick Greenhaus: Sorry, Dick, I didn't address your questions to me.

The Post Office has enough problems without trying to put either Fed Express or UPS out of business. If the Postal Service had been operated more efficiently,there would be no Fed Express or UPS today.

Ditto, the public school system.

Blackwater? Last I heard Blackwater (operating under a different name now) is still in business. Why shouldn't it be? It's a privately operated business and they evidently offer a needed service some folks are willing to pay good money for. It's a question of supply and demand.

Health Insurance companies in the US are not perfect but they MUST supply good services or they will go out of business. Ever heard of a government agency going out of business for the same reason?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 03:54 PM

We definitely have rationing based on that definition. The insurance companies regularly deny needed care to those they insure in order to bolster their bottom line. They don't make money by providing care. They make money by denying care, and they do that quite regularly, resulting in the deaths of many thousands of people each year.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 03:38 PM

Carol C: Your definition of health care "rationing" is a bit off base. "Rationing" is withholding needed health care because of cost and age.

Artbrooks: Perhaps you are right provided the health care provided by a government plan IS "equal" or "superior" to the care we have now. However, a question: if such a plan is "equal" or "superior" why wouldn't government employees, including the president and members of congress, opt out of the excellent plan you describe and join us "common" folks in the plan Obama is trying to shove down our throats.

The Rassmussen Poll out today reports that 48% of Americans believe our current health care is good. Only 19% declared that they thought it was poor.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 01:17 PM

IF healthcare is provided at prices comparable to those at Costco, and it is equal or superior in quality to that which insured individuals currently have, than I don't personally see anything particularly wrong with companies that have been charging more for less going out of business. Certainly, there will be some job loss at the commercial insurance companies - think of all of those poor individuals whose jobs are to think of ways to deny benefits interpret company policies and procedures.

By the way, Members of Congress have exactly the same health insurance plans as all other Federal government employees, and they pay exactly the same amount for it. And it isn't cheap.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 01:14 PM

Doug-
The Post Office hasn't driven FedEx nor UPS out of business.
Public Schools haven't driven private schools out of business
Even the US Army hasn't driven Blackwater out of business.
What's so damn fragile about Health Insurance companies?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 12:23 PM

If the private insurance companies in the UK weren't driven out of business when access to medical care became FREE to everyone, there is absolutely no reason whatever to expect that the private insurance companies in the US will be driven out of business if medical care in the US becomes available for Walmart prices. None whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 12:21 PM

We already have medical rationing. Well over ten thousand people die each year in the US because of lack of access to health care and because of insurance companies denying needed care to their customers. That's the definition of medical rationing.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 12:19 PM

The Barden of England: If the federal government establishes a health program in competition with the 1200 or so private insurance companies in the US, it will drive those companies out of business. How? By providing health care at Walmart or COSTCO prices. The private companies will not be able to compete with a congress that spends money like we have it. You may well ask, "What's wrong with that?"

Low cost does not necessarily equate to quality of care.

It is ironic that our president is preaching that the government should enter the fray as a provider to provide competition, when we already have over 1200 insurance companies in this country competing for consumers.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, goohowevd? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 12:03 PM

McGrath: I did not write that I rejoiced that a few million (your 35 million figure is still a bit high IMO)US citizens are without health care! I wish every citizen of the US could have super health care as our presidents enjoy and members of Congress enjoy.

I believe, however that the result of government take-over of health care would result in reduction in the quality of care and lead to medical rationing, particularly for old folks like me.

Perhaps the British government operates more efficiently than I perceive that our government does (the fiasco that resulted from the "Cash for Clunkers" legislation that occurred this weekend is an excellent example of what I mean, but THAT'S another story)and may account for the practically unanimous opinion on this forum that you Brits have the perfect health care system.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 11:17 AM

"Everyone" who woudl benefit most certainly includes Dougie. Better health care, or at any rate just as good as he's getting, but also no more nagging discomfort about the Mudcatters who have reported here about how they've been let down by the existing "system", let alone all the other people with similar experiences who aren't Mudcatters.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 11:12 AM

mg, some good ideas, but I would find it hard to ever trust a nurse or PA again. Twice now they have missed a diagnosis of pneumonia, delaying treatment and causing a long recovery time. I also think you have to be very careful about passing off those who may need emotional support. A doctor needs to be a good listener and can sometimes suss out much of what it causing a person's loneliness/etc. that a manicurist etc. might miss, I mean a physical problem etc.

We have health insurance. I would gladly give it up for something like the government has in the UK. The other day I was calling for oxygen prices. The ONLY PPO (preferred provider - meaning they have a contract with the insurance co. and accept negotiated prices) will not just supply me with bottles of O2. I have to rent a concentrator from them, too, at partial expense to me. I own my own concentrator; I told them that was stupid, no thanks. The whole health care thing in this country is so stupid, sad, wasteful, sick, and a disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 08:04 AM

The National Health system has not caused any collapse in the standard that is offered by private health insurance... so how would your cover[age] be affected?

Of course it wouldn't be affected- but history amply proves that the last thing you want do is attempt to change Douggie's mind with facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 02:59 AM

I certainly hope we can achieve it soon. My preferences are for the magic wand preferably, but if that doesn't work, a combination of holding things in place that work fairly well now, a huge and rapid expansion of public health clinics and hospitals, mandatory insurance sliding scale of course, some fees collected for service, sliding scale, some increased taxation if necessary, which it will be.

Everyone who can not flat out pay top dollar for private care should expect some sacrifice...and some evaluation if all their care is necessary..like the people who do use doctor visits to get attention, relieve loneliness etc. I don't know what percentage that is..but I bet it is somewhat higher than necessary..not that their needs should not be met, but they could be met by a manicurist sometimes rather than a doctor, or a CNA perhaps. There could be some grouped educational visits...heart attack recovery patients meet Wednesday at 2...celiac disease at 1..taught by nurse educators...

And I think we should be screening people..like those lifeline screens that catch stuff early. Of course you can catch more than you can treat perhaps..but they can scan people for $119 and look at several risk factors in a church parking lot..why would it take a hosptial thousands to do one screenign? I know overhead, depreciation etc...but still, it can be done cheaper.

Immunizations...do it like in the army..line up..someone shoots you on one side and someone on the other..you could get through a bunch of school kids that way..

The doctor who diagnoses you and prescribes for you does not have to be the one to patiently answer questions for you. That again could be done in a group setting with a nurse educator.

And start training additional nurses and other medical people right now..free ride for certain income levels and agreement to serve in certain areas. No excuse. There is all sorts of educational money..target it to where it is needed.

And speaking of educational reform...Maine years ago turned out CNAs in high school..why doesn't every high school do that? Too stunned I know. Get kids on a health profession TRACK oh did she say TRACK yes she did...and they should be shovel ready on graduation ready to go to at least a 2 year program. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 02:55 AM

DougR - We have Private Insurance for health are here in the UK too, and always have done. The National Health system has not caused any collapse in the standard that is offered by private health insurance, it is quite rightly there for those who can afford it, however, the National Health Service covers all at point of need free of charge - no need to claim from an insurance company. Your statement 'If the congress were to concentrate on the 12 million rather than run the risk of screwing up everybody else's program' confuses me somewhat. In what way would it screw up your insurance cover? The Private Health cover here in the UK is not there to subsidise the National Health Service - it doesn't, so how would your cover be affected?
John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 11:31 PM

Health care for all means that everyone benefits in the long run.

Except Douggie, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 10:25 PM

"...health insurance company insider who had a "road to Damascus" experience,..."


                  Strangely enough, I was recently treated by an orthopedic sergeon who earned his medical degree in Damascus. A very pleasant young man--very competent.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 06:21 PM

Actually, since it's a translation from Tuscan dialect, the actual words tend to vary with the translator. But the idea is certainly clear enough.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 06:12 PM

Pedantic drift: I suspect that ""The darkest places in hell" is more likely to be closer to what Dante would have said, since the lowest circles of his Hell are cold rather than hot.

Anyone got a source for where in the Inferno this remark comes?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 06:01 PM

Brilliant! Thank you Don.

I might just sleep better tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 05:45 PM

Or you can read the interview. The text can be found lower down on the page.

I note that one of the things that spurred Potter's decision was reading a favorite quote of mine. From Dante's Inferno:    "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, maintain neutrality."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 05:35 PM

If you can handle it, this interview (it runs about 42 minutes) will give you a good picture of the American health care system, why it's the way it is, and why it will be a real battle to change it.

The interview is with a health insurance company insider who had a "road to Damascus" experience, began to realize what is really going on, and could no longer support the industry he was working for and live with himself. This man knows—from the inside—what he's talking about. Facts and figures.

Take the time to watch it. Please!

CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 05:34 PM

The reality of the system in the US is that people die, because they cannot get the medical care they need. My daughter died!

Why anyone "in the self-professed greatest nation on earth" is prepared to let that happen to their fellow citizens is beyond me.

But then I think about Katrina and the devastation of New Orleans which still continues and I realise the apathy in the US is soul numbing.

People need to do more than say what they think with that occasional vote. They need to be activists and advocate for what is right and fair.

McGrath is right. We will never see American's "take to the streets" for this cause, because the ones who could make a difference the ones with the time, money and connections are comfortable with where they are and what they have.

The poor sod working 2 to 3 jobs per week just to keep roof and food for his/her family can't take to the streets. They don't have the bloody time. They can't miss work.

God, Why don't people get it!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 03:55 PM

Nuts, I thought I had added the link.

Americana

I'll get it right some day

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 03:42 PM

The second item in this broadcast is about health care in the States. A sort of revivalist medicine show, apparently, and serving neither immigrants nor the especially young.

Don't anyone ever say another word about British teeth.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 01:23 PM

Obama's proposed plan is not a single payer plan, and neither is the House Resolution that has just passed out of committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 01:21 PM

So that's only 35 million people living in the United States without any kind of helath cover. So that's all right. If they get sick there is of course no danger that they'll pass any infections on to other Americans.

What I don't understand is where you get the idea that your own health care is threatened by having everybody else getting health care, Doug. It just doesn't work like that here, and it doesn't work like that naywhere else. The USA is completely unique anong rich countries in not having universal health care. Conservative governments, liberal goverenments, you name it, everyone else has it. Health care for all means that everyone benefits in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 12:53 PM

Education in North America went that way, too, Doug. Hell, we followed the example of England around about the same time as the NZ government brought in the "Collaborative business model of education". It was fast making education a disater in those places and so, in our infinite wisdom, WE followed in their footsteps hoping to make the corrections to errors they'd made. And we did. We helped sustain a system that was based on a flawed premise. Education should NOT be a business. In my opinion, neither should health care.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,DougR
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 12:28 PM

My wife and I are recovering from the effects of record extremities of Arizona heat in Durango, Colorado. What a relief.

Back to the subject, however. Much has been made of the number 47 million who are without health care in the U.S. I don't believe, however, anyone on this thread has pointed out that several million (12 to 20 million, no one knows for sure) are not citizens of the United States, another few million are young people who give little thought to getting sick and would rather spend their money on the fun things in life, instead of health insurance. The balance want health insurance but cannot afford it. Estimates of the number I have heard that make up the latter, are around 12 million.

If the congress were to concentrate on the 12 million rather than run the risk of screwing up everybody else's program, perhaps there would be more enthusiasm for the Bills that now linger in Congress.

Support for a federal single payer program decreases daily from the voting public as people learn more about the proposed programs.

After members of Congress, who have now returned home to face their constituents, I believe there will even less support for a single player plan in the U.S.

We will likely get some kind of plan, but it won't be the one Obama has been trying to sell.
DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 12:26 PM

"...(like the infamous "Harry and Louise" commercials at the beginning of the Clinton administration—which have been resurrected), " Don Firth

This time, though, Don, Harry and Louise are working for the other side.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Aug 09 - 07:02 PM

Well, the difference here in the U. S., Sandy, is that in their zeal to cater to big business, a distressing number of our senators and congressmen do things like refusing to cancel military contracts for such things as the F-22 fighter plane, designed for a Cold War situation and essentially useless for the kind of conflicts we find ourselves in now and anticipate possibly finding ourselves in the future--and which the Pentagon neither needs nor wants--in order to keep great wads of the military budget flowing into businesses in their home districts.

In the meantime, 47 million Americans are going without health insurance because they can't afford the premiums.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 01 Aug 09 - 04:50 PM

A quote from my friend Bruce's post: "A good friend of mine has a bumper sticker that reads,
"Won't it be great when education has all the money it needs and the airforce has to hold bake sales to buy bombers?"

While I share his friends view of bombers the RCAF has few of them. Living on an an Atlantic island I have tremendous respect for the airforce's search and rescue division. These SARTECHS often jump from planes and choppers into the freezing Atlantic (or Pacific or Arctic) Ocean to rescue others in distress. They are my heros! Their equipment is often less than state of the art and the planes that they fly would be antiques if they were autos. It is there that money needs to be spent rather than on weapons of war. My fear is that they may have to hold a bake sale as well!
Bruce, I share your history of growing up poor, and when medicare was introduced in Canada doctors protested but soon realized that it worked in their favour because there would be no more on-collected bills, at least for those with the compassion to treat first and bill later.