🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <RLM.93Sep28223501@helen.surfcty.com>,
Robert L. McMillin <rlm@helen.surfcty.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Sep 1993 15:25:53 -0800, camilla.cracchiolo@calcom.socal.com (Camilla Cracchiolo) said:
>
>>  -=> Quoting Ray to (crosspost 1) All <=-
>> Ra> Two points:
>> Ra> 
>> Ra> 1) Do you really want a health care program like Canada's?
>> Ra> 
>> Ra> 2) Do you really feel that the governmet is capable of effectively
>> Ra> adminstrating a health care program without raising the cost or
>> Ra> decreasing the quality of service?
>
>>  To both your points:  yes, absolutely.
>
>Dream on.
>
>Why do people still think that the government can do anything well?
>This belief in bureaucracy borders on religious fervor.
>
>Robert L. McMillin | Surf City Software | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Dude!


Since state-run health care systems in Canada and Europe are less costly
and serve more people than our health care system, the religious fervor is
among those who claim that the government can't run health care efficiently.

Since the fact is that governments in other countries have run health care
in a less costly manner than our market-based health care system and
continue to so so, your denial that the government can do so flies in the
face of existing reality.  

But don't take my word for it, here's what one European periodical argues.
 THE ECONOMIST, a moderately conservative pro-business newsweekly in
Britain, notes:   "In the 30 years in which America, along among rich
countries, left health care mainly to the market, it saw costs and the
numbers of uninsured mushroom.  Much else may be uncertain, but that
policy is a proven failure."




-- 
	 **************************************************
         *    Nathan Newman:  newman@garnet.berkeley.edu  *
         *                 UC-Berkeley			  *