John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Lan Barnes wrote:
I agree that if the purpose of a health care policy is to make
physicians and insurers inordinately rich while screwing over sick
children and auto manufacturers, then we have a better system.
I see a continued "the grass is greener on the other side" and I hate to
break the news: it isn't. It is merely a different shade, with different
tradeoffs.
One person may like one set, and someone else may prefer another.
So the doctors come to the US to get rich and the patients go to Canada
to get treated and get drugs. The patients get the last vote, after
all. Let's let the free market work and push the doctors who came here
to get rich back to Canada where all the patients are.
1/4 of this country would prefer Canada's. Period. Even crappy
healthcare beats *no* healthcare.
No one is saying that you can't pay for *better* healthcare. Feel free.
If you want to fund your doctor more, fine.
However, we need a minimum. It costs our whole *society* not to have
that minimum. We wind up with emergency room visits which need to be
corrected by surgery instead of $4 of antibiotics or a dietary change.
We wind up with communicable disease outbreaks that require mobilizing
the CDC rather than vaccinations. We wind up with drug resistant
bacteria because people won't/can't take full courses of treatments.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
