On Aug 27, 9:46 am, m II wrote:
- - D Peter Maus wrote:
- - Ask all the Canadians who cross the border for emergency
procedures
- - that would take a year wait or more from their universal health
care
- - system.
- -
- - Why do you think there are now private, non government involved
- - hospitals appearing in Canada? To serve those who have found the
- - Canadian health care system wanting.

M II -wrote-
- As the population ages, their medical needs go up. Big business has
- noticed a huge market catering to this group. There are billions to
be
- made, as people in general don't want to die. Most will pay anything
in
- order to stay above ground.
-
- The politicians, ever so eager to keep their contributors and future
- employers happy, are making privatization of the health care system
- possible. In Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where I live, they've closed
two
- of the biggest hospitals. One was demolished and the other one is
being
- used by private interests. That caused a bed shortage.
-
- The more of an inconvenience a visit to the hospital becomes, the
more
- people will be accepting a privatized system. That will, invariably,
- cost them more than they are paying now. There has to be a profit
made,
- or why bother setting up a business?
-
- Any shortcomings or faults in the system can be blamed directly on
this
- need of government to privatize. It's all about generating business
- opportunities for the money men behind our elected 'servants'.
-
- mike

IIRC - The UK is now using an estimate of 15% 'Private'
to 85% Public to equalize the distribution of Medical
Care between : Those who can Pay-Their-Own-Way -and-
Those who can best use the Public Supported System.

(OT) : The False {Political} Promise of Public Health Care for
All . . .

The Smart Approach is a National Sales Tax of around
5% that Taxes both Domestic and Imported Goods and
Services 'equally' is the best way of fairly distributing the
Cost of Public Health Care.

The Really Dumb Idea is to use a Payroll Based System
which 'jacks-up' the Price of Domestic Goods and Services
and lets Imported Goods and Services go UN-TAXED.

Once Again the US Congress has FAILED the Citizens
of the US in providing a Public Health Care System that
is funded in a manner to be cost neutral to the Tax Payers.

EXAMPLE : The US Military Health Care System for both
Active and Retired Service Members has many "Problems"
and they are all directly attributed to the Inadequate Funding
of the System by the US Congress.

Question - What If - We Had a Public Health Care System
for Every US Citizen and the US Congress FAILED to provide
adequate Funding . . . American Citizens would be Sick
and Dying and the Blood would be on the Hands of Each
and Every Member of the House and Senate.


throw the bumbs out - we need real change
and new leadership in the us congress ~ RHF

D Peter Maus wrote:
* *I don't have health insurance. I don't want it.

* *I can name 3 of my colleagues who don't have it, either. And
don't want it.


Perhaps you are very well off and can write a check for whatever
medical expenses you need. Or perhaps you don't expect to have any
serious health issues.

But for most middle-class Americans, a serious illness or injury to
themselves or a family member could wipe them out financially if they
did not have health insurance. I make a good salary, but I wouldn't
risk my family's well-being by not having health insurance.

By the way, Obama's health plan (unlike Hillary's) is not mandatory,
so you won't have to be part of it if you don't want to be.

Art Harris

Art Harris wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
I don't have health insurance. I don't want it.

I can name 3 of my colleagues who don't have it, either. And
don't want it.


Perhaps you are very well off and can write a check for whatever
medical expenses you need. Or perhaps you don't expect to have any
serious health issues.

But for most middle-class Americans, a serious illness or injury to
themselves or a family member could wipe them out financially if they
did not have health insurance. I make a good salary, but I wouldn't
risk my family's well-being by not having health insurance.

By the way, Obama's health plan (unlike Hillary's) is not mandatory,
so you won't have to be part of it if you don't want to be.

Art Harris


You missed the point....Agreeing with your statements above, the
noise is the claim that 47 millions Americans don't have health
insurance and that constitutes a crisis. The fact is, that there are
those who don't have it, and don't want it, rendering that 47
million figure a misrepresentation of the actual issue under
discussion.

Art Harris wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:
I don't have health insurance. I don't want it.

I can name 3 of my colleagues who don't have it, either. And
don't want it.


Perhaps you are very well off and can write a check for whatever
medical expenses you need. Or perhaps you don't expect to have any
serious health issues.

But for most middle-class Americans, a serious illness or injury to
themselves or a family member could wipe them out financially if they
did not have health insurance. I make a good salary, but I wouldn't
risk my family's well-being by not having health insurance.

By the way, Obama's health plan (unlike Hillary's) is not mandatory,
so you won't have to be part of it if you don't want to be.

And, Obama is not mandatory, you don't have to vote for him.

NoBama, no cry!

On Aug 27, 2:34*pm, dxAce wrote:
Art Harris wrote:
*D Peter Maus wrote:
* *I don't have health insurance. I don't want it.

* *I can name 3 of my colleagues who don't have it, either. And
don't want it.

Perhaps you are very well off and can write a check for whatever
medical expenses you need. Or perhaps you don't expect to have any
serious health issues.

But for most middle-class Americans, a serious illness or injury to
themselves or a family member could wipe them out financially if they
did not have health insurance. I make a good salary, but I wouldn't
risk my family's well-being by not having health insurance.

By the way, Obama's health plan (unlike Hillary's) is not mandatory,
so you won't have to be part of it if you don't want to be.

And, Obama is not mandatory, you don't have to vote for him.

NoBama, no cry!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 4 November 2008 - Just Say No To Obama

nobama, NoBama. NOBAMA ! ~ RHF

D Peter Maus wrote:

I don't have health insurance. I don't want it.

I can name 3 of my colleagues who don't have it, either. And
don't want it.

Art Harris wrote:

Perhaps you are very well off and can write a check for whatever
medical expenses you need.

Perhaps.

Or perhaps you don't expect to have any
serious health issues.

Right...just like the people that don't bother with a will because they
never expect to die.

But for most middle-class Americans, a serious illness or injury to
themselves or a family member could wipe them out financially if they
did not have health insurance.

Yes Art, this is quite true. Medical expenses have gone through the
roof. I recently had two relatives and a friend requiring medical care,
arthroscopic knee surgery, appendectomy and quadruple bypass. The prices
for these services ranged from a low of $18,500 to a little over $100,000.

Many families (but not all) simply do not have that much money on hand.
The ones who do have that much money didn't get that wealthy by being
stupid and 'going naked' (without insurance). Excluding the wealthy, the
savings rate for this country is a -negative- one or two percent (which
is to say, most have -no- savings and are dipping into whatever equity
they can scrape up).

There may be a few quirky or eccentric individuals that indeed do not
want medical insurance, but given their druthers, I think a LARGE
portion of people would prefer to have it.

I make a good salary, but I wouldn't
risk my family's well-being by not having health insurance.

Amen...and just speculation, but maybe the other poster doesn't have a
family to worry about.

D Peter Maus wrote:

You missed the point....Agreeing with your statements above, the noise
is the claim that 47 millions Americans don't have health insurance and
that constitutes a crisis. The fact is, that there are those who don't
have it, and don't want it, rendering that 47 million figure a
misrepresentation of the actual issue under discussion.

Before you can say that, you have to provide the percentage of the 47
million that don't want it. 1 million? 46.5 million?

Would you care to provide an approximate figure of how many of the 47
million 'don't want it' or at least speculate?

Possibly you are splitting hairs or addressing the 'exception that
proves the rule'?

As a fact, medical care is -extremely- expensive and common sense would
dictate that a very large portion of those 47 million, given a choice,
-would- prefer to have health care insurance (you and your 3 friends
excepted of course).

D Peter Maus wrote:

* *You missed the point....Agreeing with your statements above, the
noise is the claim that 47 millions Americans don't have health
insurance and that constitutes a crisis. The fact is, that there are
those who don't have it, and don't want it, rendering that 47
million figure a misrepresentation of the actual issue under
discussion

Most "don't want it" for the same reason I don't want a Rolls Royce
(too expensive). And then there are young people who think they're
going to stay healthy and live forever. But when they're on death's
door, they will go to the emergency room and the rest of us will pick
up the tab.

The number of Americans who truly don't want health insurance is very
small. Lack of access to health care IS a crisis for those who have
lost jobs, or whose employers don't offer coverage.

Every other industrial nation has some form of universal health care
for their citizens. Sooner or later the US will too.

Art Harris

Billy Burpelson wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

You missed the point....Agreeing with your statements above, the
noise is the claim that 47 millions Americans don't have health
insurance and that constitutes a crisis. The fact is, that there are
those who don't have it, and don't want it, rendering that 47 million
figure a misrepresentation of the actual issue under discussion.

Before you can say that, you have to provide the percentage of the 47
million that don't want it. 1 million? 46.5 million?



That's exactly my point. That figure is never provided when the
'crisis' is declared. A claim of crisis based on an absence of fact.

Art Harris wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
You missed the point....Agreeing with your statements above, the
noise is the claim that 47 millions Americans don't have health
insurance and that constitutes a crisis. The fact is, that there are
those who don't have it, and don't want it, rendering that 47
million figure a misrepresentation of the actual issue under
discussion

Most "don't want it" for the same reason I don't want a Rolls Royce
(too expensive). And then there are young people who think they're
going to stay healthy and live forever. But when they're on death's
door, they will go to the emergency room and the rest of us will pick
up the tab.

The number of Americans who truly don't want health insurance is very
small.


That may be true. I know, however, in my circles of
colleagues/friends, only 1 in 3 has health insurance, and those that
do not have it, do not want it. The number nationwide may be
surprising. But it's a number that's not reported.

All of your points about those who want health insurance are
valid. And I'm not arguing with any of them. You are correct.

My point is that to claim everyone who is not insured is in
crisis is disingenuous. If not misleading.