Single Payer Universal Health Care

mike gray wrote:

Best to wait five or six years before raising the healthcare issue.


why 5-to-6 years?

iow, what scenario do you see that
would support waiting 5/6 years?

e.g. given that Kerry wins in 2004, and has
the good sense to not immediately press for
"universal (USA) medical insurance"...

is that what you mean?
---------------------------

on another topic and fwiw, somewhere in this
thread guy commented that

"A universal system seem to be the way to go.
It will not happen, Too much profit for some
in the present mess."

to my view, the one/only solution to our
very high USA medical costs is to take
the health care bucks out of the pocket
of the system and put them back into the
pockets of sll of our USA citizens

i personally don't think that it will happen,
but it is *clearly* the only thing that
will work in the long run

my guess is that you think the same
---------------------------

also, you've now posted 29x in
this thread. (or 39x?)



why is this so important to you?

all ears, bill t1 since '57

willbill wrote in message ...
mike gray wrote:

Best to wait five or six years before raising the healthcare issue.


why 5-to-6 years?

Under the assumption of Kerry in the Whitehouse and reelected, that
would put him into his second term so the fallout won't be on him?

That requires that he is elected in the first place. Have you
noticed? He doesn't use the SPUC word anymore.

iow, what scenario do you see that
would support waiting 5/6 years?

e.g. given that Kerry wins in 2004, and has
the good sense to not immediately press for
"universal (USA) medical insurance"...

is that what you mean?
---------------------------

on another topic and fwiw, somewhere in this
thread guy commented that

"A universal system seem to be the way to go.
It will not happen, Too much profit for some
in the present mess."

to my view, the one/only solution to our
very high USA medical costs is to take
the health care bucks out of the pocket
of the system

You mean out of the pocket of the hospitals, physicians, and
pharmacists?

and put them back into the
pockets of sll of our USA citizens

You can do that now. Opt out of insurance and grow your own herbs.

i personally don't think that it will happen,
but it is *clearly* the only thing that
will work in the long run

Putting the money into the pockets of Congressmen to dole out as they
think is best for you?

Do you know what the Congressional health plan looks like? Hey, if
that's good enough for Congress, that's good enough for me.

my guess is that you think the same
---------------------------

also, you've now posted 29x in
this thread. (or 39x?)



why is this so important to you?

Why did you count the number of posts?

all ears, bill t1 since '57

js

In article ,
MuscleMan wrote:
On 25 May 2004 15:45:09 -0500, (Herman
Rubin) wrote:

In article ,
Peanutjake wrote:
No matter who is running for president

I am in favor of

Single Payer Universial Health Care.


I am not. It is likely to take you months or even years
for a diabetic to get referred to an endocrinologist if
this is done.

This is already true here. I've paid for months b4 without getting
anything back, not even a return phone call.

I know people in Canada, it's not true there.

I have seen a posting on a diabetic mailing list from
someone in Saskatchewan who stated that there were
two endocrinologists for the entire province.

There are not enough here, but there are more.


..................


Also,
all cases where someone is denied medical care which
could have been obtained without government intervention
can sue the body of lawmakers for immediate access to
such at the price which would have been there otherwise,
and any delay is subject to multiple damages.


If we did this right now, we would have a universal payer system.

But you cannot do this without making major revisions to
the Constitution. At this time, the only penalty which
can be visited on lawmakers for their actions as such
is not to be reelected.

You can make everyone equally poor. You cannot make
everyone rich, no matter what you do.

Sure? Try Norway. When it broke and formed it's gov't round the turn
of last century, the usurpers were union members. The result was
country with no poor, universal health care, and a large middle class,
as we used to have. Less crime too.

What you call no poor I would call all poor. Socialism
does not work, as it removes incentives. There was
probably a large emigration of those who could earn
money to the US.

A smaller amount of less rich aristocrats too. Some thing we used to
be famous for also.

We have no aristocrats. We have lots of rich people,
who are highly restricted by stupid governments from
investing in real innovations.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558