"hifi-tek" wrote in message
m...
snip
The biggest problem with health insurance in general, is that the poorest
people, who can least afford it, are the very ones who need it the most.
Because of ignorance, lifestyle choices, attitude, etc. the poorest sector
of the population is the one you most see frequenting the ER departments
at hospitals. There is no solution to this dilemma except to have the
upper middle class and the rich help subsidize health care for the poor.
We will always have the poor with us, and there is some social
responsibility for the more affluent to help take care of the less
fortunate. This is not redistributon of wealth, it is simply, "help your
fellow man". "Deal with poverty in this country," sounds noble and good,
but here in America, we have been trying to deal with poverty for many
years. Johnson's war on poverty and its ilk has cost this country $500
billion over 45 years, and I have yet to see a noticeable decrease in the
numeric percentage of poor people vs. non poor. Having said that, even
the very wealthy sometimes do not benefit from our health care system. Tim
Russert is a good example. No amount of sophisticated health care was able
to help him. Sadly, I might add. He was a good guy, he'll be missed . . .
Just my .02 worth (adjusted for inflation)
Regards,
Tom

Tom,

Yes, it's vexing, isn't it? Canada has been trying to deal with "poverty
and its ilk" for many years now, especially as it concerns health care, but
as you point out, the poor are quite stupid and they continually make bad
choices. This makes it very difficult to help them, since they don't always
follow our "suggestions".

I'm sure if you have any actual ideas as to how we could improve our stats,
they would be eagerly accepted.

This "help your fellow man" thing is getting tiresome, I agree. It's driven
our taxes to the stratosphere!

Buck Frobisher wrote:

I'm sure if you have any actual ideas as to how we could improve our
stats, they would be eagerly accepted.

Too lazy to go look up the exact income figures but "poor" in the US
would be middle class in most of the world. And thats just income. The
additional entitlements when given a dollar value push the 'income'
figure quite high.

Its not up to me to judge who is poor and who is not. My income is
below the poverty line so I can't help but think that over the years the
giveaway program has self-widened to encompass more people. A lot of
that has to do with mismanagement of the programs and also smacks of
lack of political will to tighten it up.

From my perspective the biggest stumbling block to any sort of national
health care program is the cost of the services themselves. A national
"insurance" validates an already 'too expensive' medical system and I
can't see that as workable. On the other hand I see no reason why the
gubmint cannot become involved with providing direct services for the
less fortunate. That may sound socialistic but at least is the humane
thing to do. If they can get that obligation functional then maybe it
can be expanded accordingly as needed.

Thats how it works here and it seems to work well. Medical costs across
the board are about 1/3 that of the US mainland and there is virtually
no difference in the level or quality of the care. Our system would not
work if it weren't for that.

-Bill
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"exray" wrote in message
...

From my perspective the biggest stumbling block to any sort of national
health care program is the cost of the services themselves. A national
"insurance" validates an already 'too expensive' medical system and I
can't see that as workable. On the other hand I see no reason why the
gubmint cannot become involved with providing direct services for the
less fortunate. That may sound socialistic but at least is the humane
thing to do. If they can get that obligation functional then maybe it
can be expanded accordingly as needed.

Indeed, the cost of medical services is the fundamental problem. At the end
of WWII, businesses began giving their employees free or low-cost medical
insurance, because medical treatment was (then) relatively cheap. It no
longer is.

The issue with all legislation is whether it works the way it's supposed to,
and does not produce unintended effects. We forget that we live in a world
governed almost solely by economics * (the production & exchange of goods &
services), and laws unavoidably interact with our economic system, whether
or not we "intend" them to. This is one of the reasons it's essentially
impossible to get rid of poverty, because poverty benefits the wealthy.

* This was not true before the invention of agriculture and the ability of
people to produce more food than they needed.