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.