On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:13:15 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
What makes _you_ think that? And no, Medicare is not a single payer
system.

because the power of negotiation will remove some of the bloated costs built
in, for starters. With the current system, a ton of breakdowns into various
insured groups almost ensures a lack of transparent price structures. And,
given human nature invites vast overpricing and profit taking.

That said, I'm with Jeff in saying that healthcare ought to be treated as a
societal benefit, or as he put it, a right of citizenship, not a for-profit
business.

Ya know, I keep hearing about these friggin' "rights" and "societal benefit" and
what folks ought to get and all, but what about some of the responsibilities
that come with them...? As it currently stands, should what appears to be the
latest cluster**** of a scheme actually come to pass, those folks who will
benefit most from "universal" health care are the very ones who would contribute
literally _nothing_ to the cost of it all. And no, I don't mean the truly
destitute, as I doubt they'll see much, if any, change in their "real-world"
health care no matter which of the current set of usual suspects "reforms" it. I
refer to those with jobs, but not enough income, after all the exemptions,
credits, etc., to owe _any_ income tax. And before anyone says anything, the
wonderful, as I understand it, the perfect European and UK systems' _effective_
income tax bands start at _much_ lower incomes than the US and there are various
other taxes, such as VAT, etc., that US liberals scream to all holy hell about
being regressive, unkind and just downright mean.

And on top that, if this scheme has no profit, who is gonna work for it, how
are, ahem, medical labs gonna get paid, fancy new machines purchased, new drugs
developed, etc.?

TC,
R

Tom