🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1993Jan20.071414.4698@fylz.wa.com> fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes) writes:

>Walter Bright (bright@nazgul.UUCP) wrote:
>: In article <1993Jan18.194858.21798@ssc.com> fyl@ssc.com (Phil Hughes) writes:


>We don't care about profits in this case.  We are talking about
>eliminiation of an industry that doesn't need to exist -- or at least
>not in its present form.  The costs (the 25% overhead) exists because
>there are multiple insurance companies that the health care providers
>must deal with.  If this unnecessary intermediary is eliminated (by
>having one non-profit insurance plan) the overhead goes away.  It's
>that simple.

Assuming that a national health care program would reduce health care cost
by 20% (and I'm not at all convinced it would), how does this address
the problem?  The problem is that health care costs are "SPIRALING".  A
20% reprieve will be eaten up in a matter of months.

>I don't understand why this is such a problem for Americans.

I have a problem with it because you have eliminated FREEDOM OF CHOICE
for me, for a supposed benefit I am not convinced will materialize.

>Americans are willing to shop at Pace and other large-scale retailers
>that eliminate the middleman.  The Canadian health care system is
>exactly the same -- eliminate unnecessary middlemen and the cost goes
>down.

There is one major difference between large-scale retailers and a
national health care system: FREEDOM OF CHOICE.  I can choose to go
to any retailer I wish.  With national health care I am forced to
go with a government "merchant".

-- 
del AKA Erik Lindberg                             uunet!pilchuck!fnx!del
                          Who is John Galt?