🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 28 Sep 1993 19:42:10 GMT, pjk@netcom.com (Phil Koenig) said:

> In article <RLM.93Sep26101408@helen.surfcty.com> rlm@helen.surfcty.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes:
>>On Fri, 24 Sep 1993 16:04:54 GMT, tse@foolish.apple.com (Gary Tse) said:

>>> I was not and am not happy with Kaiser.  So I am using another
>>> health provider now. 
>>
>>Clinton and his state-happy minions will be loathe to allow you *any*
>>choice in the future.  You will get what you get, which will be
>>provided for by the insurers and the HMOs.  This is absolutely *not*
>>the kind of reform that's needed.  What we do need is to make health

> Well, you certainly have the right to believe or disbelieve Clinton's
> pronouncements, but he made a definite *point* about his conviction that
> the plan he proposes giving excellent _choice_ to those covered.  Let's not
> start tilting at windmills until we know they exist, OK?

This is absolutely false.  His proposed "solution" to the non-problem
of health care is that the government gets to say who's in the
health-care delivery business, and who is not.  "Managed Competition"
is just another way of saying "utility" -- or "monopoly".  What we
will have is a situation akin to telephone companies delivering health
care.  "The technician will be able to see you some time between 8 and
5 today."  Uh huh.

>>If people are given resources that behave as though they were
>>infinitely cheap, they will abuse them.  That's why single-payer
>>health-care is such a sham.  Even reducing the number of payers, as
>>Clinton is suggesting, will ultimately have negative effects, because
>>the payers are not the users.  Until this happens, we can count on
>>costs continuing to skyrocket and nobody being very satisfied.

> If you listened to the speech, you would know that he also suggested a
> small co-payment fee ...

... which will bear absolutely no resemblance to the actual cost of
treatment.  This will fail to bring the cost/benefit analysis inherent
in a market to bear; it will be as bad as the current situation.

> , for just the purpose of reminding people each time 
> they go to the doctor that it isn't entirely "free".  Whether this fits
> your definition of not behaving as if they are "infinitely cheap", I don't
> know - but once again Clinton *specifically* addressed those concerns in
> his proposal.

So what?  If a liver transplant apparently cost $5, and you needed a
new liver, would you do it?  Of course.  What if a cheaper, drug-based
alternative appeared that had slightly more inconvenient side affects?
It, too, would cost $5.  What's the incentive for *anyone* to find
cheaper medicines?

> Your contention that single-payer systems are a "sham" is ridiculous, and
> most likely borne out of ignorance of the rest of the world.

Your contention that single-payer works is ridiculous, and is most
likely borne out of a willful ignorance of how well socialism *truly*
works.  Single-payer is busting treasuries in those countries that
have it.  Sweden has had to cut back -- rather substantially -- on
the things it can and cannot do for its citizens: young single women
no longer can procreate at will and expect the state to pay for their
offspring.  Canada also recently whacked off numerous benefits that
would be unthinkable to Americans under even the most obnoxious HMO
around (Kaiser).

-- 

Robert L. McMillin | Surf City Software | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Dude!
  "It's okay to stare at my ear.  I know you can't help it." -- Bongo