🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MS-C.727818320.377401575.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>,
 Mark Crispin <mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> writes...
>Phil Hughes writes:
>> in Canada (unlike HMOs here) you have a choice of what doctor you go to.
> 
>HUH???  I've always had a choice of what doctor I go to, and I've used HMO's
>for years.  If I didn't like my HMO, I could fire it and pick another.
> 
>With the Socialistic health care system advocated by Hughes et al, I won't
>have that choice.  I'll be stuck with the Official US Government Approved
>insurance system and if I don't like it my only choice will be to move to
>another country.
> 
>What it really is is that Hughes et al are distressed by the fact that people
>who are working productively for a living aren't being forced to pay for
>health care for homeless drug addicts with AIDS.  Socialism has no hope in
>catching on until the people who do the real work in the country are dragged
>out of the comfortable middle class and are made to feel utterly wretched and
>miserable.

Please stop ranting and remove the name-calling from your post.

Then please try again.  You haven't added to the debate.  Also, you've missed
two points:

1.	Since most proposed single-insurer programs are based on the Canadian
model (which every Canadian I've heard from loves), the freedom to choose your
own physician would probably be written into the legislation.

2.	Considering how many people in the United States have inadequate, or
even no, health insurance, the "homeless drug addicts with AIDS" accusation is
a complete misstatement of the facts.

							Dan, ad nauseum