On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:37:46 -0400, "Dave" <noway1@nohow2.not> wrote:

>
>>
>> I try to avoid these off topic discussions, but I have to throw in my two
>> cents worth here...
>>
>> The US already has a National Health Care System, a private / goverment /
>> no care system. It is the most expensive, most inefficient, and most
>> unfair in the developed world. If our current National Health Care System
>> had the best care, I suppose it could be excused, but by most measures, it
>> is a failure. We have the highest death rate among babies in the developed
>> world, we have the lowest life expectancies in the developed world, and we
>> have the highest percentage of uncovered people in the developed world.
>>
>> If you are very rich or running an insurance compnay our current National
>> Health Care System is terrific. If you are very poor, you probably can get
>> treatment for injuries but no preventive care. If you are in the middle,
>> you are paying through the nose for mediocre care.
>>
>> I often hear people rant about how they don't want government burecrats
>> making health care choices for them. OK I can see this, but a lot of these
>> same people are willing to let Health Insurance Industry Burecrats make
>> those decisions for them. I fail to see the difference. If anything, I'd
>> rather have governement burecrats making the decisions.
>>
>> I often hear people rant that they don't want the government rationing
>> health care, but many of these same people have their care rationed by the
>> Heath Insurance Industry.
>>
>> I often hear people rant that they don't want the government imposing new
>> taxes but these same people are paying directly (or indirectly through
>> their employers) extremely high premiums for mediocre care.
>>
>> I have a hard time understanding all the outrage against a goverment
>> administered National Health Care System. I can't see it being any worse
>> that our Current Government / Insurance Industry / Drug Company dominated
>> system. Do you really think the people running Blue Cross / Blue Shield;
>> Cigna; GSK, etc., etc. have your best intrest at heart?
>
>You make some good points. The problem I have with a government run health
>care system is...if it comes to that, there will be no individual choice
>left. Right now, the private insurance companies are terrible. But they
>are held (slightly) in check by the fact that there are more than one of
>them. That is, they have to "compete", at least to a certain degree. Once
>the government takes over, there is no need to "compete", and those in
>charge of the new government run cluster-**** can be as evil as they want
>to, as they don't answer to anybody anymore. While it's hard to imagine
>that healthcare could be "worse" in the United States, it is GUARANTEED to
>get worse (and a LOT worse) if the government gets involved at all. -Dave


I don't see the "competition" you seem to think exists. My "company",
the state gvt, offers several health care options but they are all
essentially the same and they all cost exactly the same. The only
thing I really get to choose is to see if my current doctors are in a
particular companies network. That's it, that's the only "choice" I'm
making. I would suspect private companies that offer health care do
the same, they look for the cheapest thing they can find and then the
employees take it or leave it... you call that a choice??? What is
guaranteed to happen if we do nothing is that health care costs will
continue to rise at a rate way beyond inflation and in a few years our
"choice" will be to pick a bare bones coverage or nothing at all while
the insurance and drug companies continue to stay fat and happy.