🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <27o2fs$qh3@bmsrs.usc.edu> degennar@bmsrs.usc.edu (Ray) writes:
>Two points:
>
>1) Do you really want a health care program like Canada's?
>
>2) Do you really feel that the governmet is capable of effectively
>   adminstrating a health care program without raising the cost or
>   decreasing the quality of service?



I'll jump in here: An emphatic YES on both counts.


The people I have informally interviewed who come from countries which have
"socialized" health care dismiss the argument that it doesn't work as a
smoke-screen by individuals or groups who either A) have never lived in
a similiar system and can't imagine anything other than what they're "used to"
or B) who have a vested interest (i.e. insurance companies) in seeing the
current system prevail.

The generally consensus is, it works, and well.  These opinions come from
Canadians, Western Europeans, and Eastern Europeans.  The favorite argument
that it would stratify the levels of care available to the "haves" and the
"have nots" was firmly refuted in all cases.  Sure, if you're a Rockefeller
or a Dupont you'll _always_ get special treatment *anywhere*, but who
would ever doubt that?

BIG MONEY is the main obstacle here - NOT the Government, per se.  The 
Clinton administration is the first to EVER try to stand up to 2 of the
most powerful groups in the country: the Insurance lobby, and the Medical
lobby.  I say: more power to Bill and Hillary.  (And Koop!  Glad to see 
the 'ol coot back on board...)



Phil
pjk@netcom.com