-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 10:10:29AM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
>
> > Nathan Saper[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:37:42PM -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:
> > > You cannot provide cheap insurance by punishing insurers, any more than
> > you
> > > can provide cheap housing by punishing landlords. It has been tried. A
> >
> > > law compelling insurance companies to insure the unhealthy will merely
> > > raise costs for the healthy, resulting in more people going uninsured.
> > >
> > > If you want to guarantee insurance for the unhealthy without ill effects
> >
> > > the TAXPAYER has to pay, and I suspect that if this proposition was put
> > to
> > > the public, enthusiasm would be considerably less. Indeed the Clintons
> > did
> > > put something very like that proposition to the public, and there was
> > > little enthusiasm.
> > >
> >
> > Having socialized healthcare would be ideal. However, I think that
> > the political atmosphere in this country pretty much removes that
> > possibility.
> >
> [...]
>
> Nathan, have you ever actually looked at socialized medicine? It's
> fine for some things, but not for others. Illnessess which can be
> cured and which curing will return a person to productive labour
> get treated - after a while. Illnessess which strike late in life and/or
> require expensive treatment get much shorter shrift. Britain's NHS
> record on cancer treatment is a national disgrace. Why do you
> think Austin Power's teeth were a running joke? The
> state of British (ie, socialized NHS) dentistry lags *far* behind
> the US, especially in the area of orthodontics.
>
IIRC, dentistry in Canada is not socialized. Not sure about
Britain...
In a recent WHO study, the U.S. was ranked (IIRC) 15th in the world
for healthcare (factoring in quality, availability, etc). This was
behind many socialized healthcare countries, such as Canada.
> Canadians like their socialized system, but any Canadian who
> gets sick knows that (for a price) they can get faster, better
> treatment in the US. There are more MRI machines in single
> US cities than in all of Canada, and the waiting lists up there
> can outlast an Albertan winter.
It is true that (for a price) faster care is available in the U.S.
I'm not sure about better care, however.
This has to be weighed against the greater availability of care in Canada.
>
> The sad truth is that cost of the best medical care has exceeded
> the ability of the average person to afford it. (When I say 'average'
> I mean the arithmetic mean of incomes, so robbing the rich to treat
> the poor still won't get everyone the best possible care). Regardless
> of how we choose to finance it, there will remain many people whose
> lives could have been improved by treatments which were not performed
> due to reasons of cost.
Very true.
>
> Once you recognize that medical care *must* be rationed, the question
> is how, and by who. The majority of the subscribers to this list are
> anarcho-capitalists and/or libertarians, and abhor any taking by force.
> Your socialist outlook is very much a minority viewpoint, and I don't
> think you're going to change anyones mind.
I've realized by now that my viewpoint is at best found annoying, and
at worst hated. It seems that people here view me the same way: at
best annoying, at worst despicable. ;-)
>
> The solution to this problem is not to propose different ways to
> slice up the too-small pie - it's to expand the pie. The greater the
> wealth, the more people who can afford good care. People who are
> responsible for their own welfare (and enslaved to the welfare of
> others) have the best chance of acheiving wealth.
This assumes that wealth will be achieved by everyone. This is simply
not true. Look at America. The rich are getting richer, and the poor
are getting poorer.
>
> Peter Trei
>
>
>
>
>
>
- --
Nathan Saper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/
GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91
Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>
iD8DBQE593p92FWyBZrQ84IRAutpAJ9tNQ9S5WIkbBLy/Y0jYLlVfs7wNwCcDa3S
+fnvSzvmiMrceShxGAVVjtI=
=79tr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
