"Sara" > wrote in message ...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >"Guy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> >>"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >>>GWB: "A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By
> >>>keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more
> >>>
> >>>
> >Americans
> >
> >
> >>>afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that
> >>>
> >>>
> >>makes
> >>
> >>
> >>>America's health care the best in the world."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>There is statistical evidence such as infant mortality rates and life
> >>expectancy that might contradict this statement. But, to me, there isn't
a
> >>whole lot wrong with the American health care delivery system. I agree
> >>
> >>
> >with
> >
> >
> >>Bush on this (he says, holding his nose).
> >>
> >>On the other hand, the health *insurance* system is badly broken. It
> >>
> >>
> >allows
> >
> >
> >>insurers to cherry pick, and adds extra bureacracy that costs an
estimated
> >>at $200 - $250 billion annually when compared to a government
single-payer
> >>system such as Canada's. This extra money contributes nothing to health
> >>care. It's just a collosal waste.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Canada's health care system is rationed such that curable breast cancer
is a
> >death sentence. Canada's health care system fails to address women's
health
> >care needs.

> Ours is rationed so that curable cancers and infections are a death
> sentence for people who can't afford the ridiculously high insurance
> premiums.

No.

> When the middle class and a lot of hardworking people are
> priced out of the US healthcare system, there is something wrong here.

Right, but that is the cost of treating AIDS.

> The insurance companies continue to make the same profits they always
> have. They don't experience bad times.

Would you feel better if foggotry destroyed corporations?

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Guy" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Oelewapper" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > GWB: "A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By
>> > keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more
>Americans
>> > afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that
>> makes
>> > America's health care the best in the world."
>>
>> There is statistical evidence such as infant mortality rates and life
>> expectancy that might contradict this statement. But, to me, there isn't a
>> whole lot wrong with the American health care delivery system. I agree
>with
>> Bush on this (he says, holding his nose).
>>
>> On the other hand, the health *insurance* system is badly broken. It
>allows
>> insurers to cherry pick, and adds extra bureacracy that costs an estimated
>> at $200 - $250 billion annually when compared to a government single-payer
>> system such as Canada's. This extra money contributes nothing to health
>> care. It's just a collosal waste.
>
>Canada's health care system is rationed such that curable breast cancer is a
>death sentence. Canada's health care system fails to address women's health
>care needs.
>
http://www-depdb.iarc.fr/who/menu.htm
If you seriously believe the above, go to the WHO databases and do some
comparisons between Canada and other nations on breast or any cancer. Compare
the US morbidity curve with the Canadian morbidity from breast cancer. You will
see you have belief about the comparison is completely backwards

Dennis

"ikke" > wrote in message
...
> > America's health care the best in the world."
>
> The US health care may rank among the best.
> Unfortunately only those who can afford it have acces to it.
> The others have to make do with far less or with nothing at all.
>
> Privatisation usualy has the following effects to the customer:
> - rising cost
> - less service
> - less quality
> - less safety
> - less reliability
>
> Want examples?
> Take a look at what happened to the infrastructure for electricity
> distribution. (owned , but hardly cared for by the energy concerns)
> Hightension lines have been neglected for decades, very little has to go
> wrong in order to experience a major blackout - as happened only months
ago.
> Take a look at the brittish railroad network. Since the privatisations,
> investments in maintenance and security plummeted.
> It is now considered the most unsafe railroad network in all of Europe.
>
> A nation is healthy when it can support its citizens by providing them
good
> and affordable education, health care, social security,
> public transportation etc.
> A healthy nation is a more productive one.
> The state has little control over, and even less influence on these
services
> if they are left to the corporate world.
> Expensive education and health care result in a weaker and less productive
> nation.
> Fewer people will have acces to the basic needs.
> Those left out will be unable to be part of the economy and be a burdon to
> it.
>
> Any leader selling out to the industry clearly is not concerned with the
> well-being of the nation he's been elected to represent.
>
> Just my two cents.
> To stop the flaming before it starts: the above opinion does not intend to
> pick on the US or its president in particular.
> It's aim is to make the reader think about the problem,
>
Indeed I have thought about it and it seems to me that
a combination of public and private is best. For example,
public roads and private automobiles (do you want the
government designing and building automobiles?), public
airways and private broadcast stations, etc.

Of course private business always have the temptation
to fix prices, limit competition, etc. That is why there
are laws against such things. But with government
control, quality always slides down hill to a level of
"good enough" - which has no relation to "good".

How good are the government-provided roads in
your area? In both quality and capacity?

How good is the government-provided health
care in Canada and England?

Think about it for a while.

Tony

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>"Sara" > wrote in message ...
>
>
>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Guy" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>GWB: "A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By
>>>>>keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>Americans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>makes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>America's health care the best in the world."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>There is statistical evidence such as infant mortality rates and life
>>>>expectancy that might contradict this statement. But, to me, there isn't
>>>>
>>>>
>a
>
>
>>>>whole lot wrong with the American health care delivery system. I agree
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>with
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bush on this (he says, holding his nose).
>>>>
>>>>On the other hand, the health *insurance* system is badly broken. It
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>allows
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>insurers to cherry pick, and adds extra bureacracy that costs an
>>>>
>>>>
>estimated
>
>
>>>>at $200 - $250 billion annually when compared to a government
>>>>
>>>>
>single-payer
>
>
>>>>system such as Canada's. This extra money contributes nothing to health
>>>>care. It's just a collosal waste.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Canada's health care system is rationed such that curable breast cancer
>>>
>>>
>is a
>
>
>>>death sentence. Canada's health care system fails to address women's
>>>
>>>
>health
>
>
>>>care needs.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Ours is rationed so that curable cancers and infections are a death
>>sentence for people who can't afford the ridiculously high insurance
>>premiums.
>>
>>
>
>No.
>
>
>
>> When the middle class and a lot of hardworking people are
>>priced out of the US healthcare system, there is something wrong here.
>>
>>
>
>Right, but that is the cost of treating AIDS.
>
>
>
>> The insurance companies continue to make the same profits they always
>>have. They don't experience bad times.
>>
>>
>
>Would you feel better if foggotry destroyed corporations?
>
>
>
>
What's foggotry?

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:48:03 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"john" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:43:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"john" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >>
>> >> So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care needs
>> >> of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of during
>> >> that period?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far more
>> >affordable than it is today.
>> >
>>
>> So wasn't EVERYTHING more affordable then?
>
>No.
>
>> So government meddling caused things to cost more?
>
>Usually.
>

NO

USUALLY

Wondeful responses.

Your depth and breadth of knowledge in this field of health care is

overwhelming.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:55:54 -0600, "Tony" > wrote:

>snipped


>>
>Indeed I have thought about it and it seems to me that
>a combination of public and private is best. For example,
>public roads and private automobiles (do you want the
>government designing and building automobiles?), public
>airways and private broadcast stations, etc.



>
>Of course private business always have the temptation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to fix prices, limit competition, etc. That is why there
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>are laws against such things. But with government
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What a joke! There are laws against such things?

Ther is no competition in the ownership of:

radio stations

tv stations

newspapers

A few powerful corporations in each category own most of them.

>control, quality always slides down hill to a level of
>"good enough" - which has no relation to "good".
>
>How good are the government-provided roads in
>your area? In both quality and capacity?
>
>How good is the government-provided health
>care in Canada and England?
>
>Think about it for a while.
>
>Tony
>

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:19:00 -0800, Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
> "devil" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:59:22 -0800, Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>> > Canada's health care system is rationed such that curable breast cancer
> is a
>> > death sentence. Canada's health care system fails to address women's
> health
>> > care needs.
>>
>> You don't know anything about Canada and health care in Canada, do you?
>
> Sure I do, if a woman goes without tretment for breast cancer for 6 months,
> the Canadian Government will buy her a bus ticket to Vermont. Didn't you
> know?

I know precisely how the Canadian system works. I live in Canada. Our
personal experience has been that we got great value.

OTOH, we can tell you of a couple of horror stories from when we lived in
the US. And paid out of our own pocket.

Most of this discussion misses the point. That the medical *business* in
the US is in effect a monopoly, with what amounts to a license to print
money.

"devil" > wrote in message
news
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:19:00 -0800, Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >
> > "devil" > wrote in message
> > news
> >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:59:22 -0800, Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >>
> >> > Canada's health care system is rationed such that curable breast
cancer
> > is a
> >> > death sentence. Canada's health care system fails to address women's
> > health
> >> > care needs.
> >>
> >> You don't know anything about Canada and health care in Canada, do you?
> >
> > Sure I do, if a woman goes without tretment for breast cancer for 6
months,
> > the Canadian Government will buy her a bus ticket to Vermont. Didn't
you
> > know?
>
> I know precisely how the Canadian system works. I live in Canada. Our
> personal experience has been that we got great value.

Sure, but you are getting treatment for men's health issues.

Have you considered how many women must die each year, so Roedy can live?

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
>
> the one sure thing when healthcare is turned over to for profits is that
> the costs go way up -- and service goes down
>

It's the other way round. Free market competition keeps cost down and
service up.

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
> So government meddling caused things to cost more?
>

Yup.

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why then are so many american obese/overweight ?
>

Because they eat a lot.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 04:57:17 GMT, devil > wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:19:00 -0800, Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
>>
>> "devil" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:59:22 -0800, Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>>
>>> > Canada's health care system is rationed such that curable breast cancer
>> is a
>>> > death sentence. Canada's health care system fails to address women's
>> health
>>> > care needs.
>>>
>>> You don't know anything about Canada and health care in Canada, do you?
>>
>> Sure I do, if a woman goes without tretment for breast cancer for 6 months,
>> the Canadian Government will buy her a bus ticket to Vermont. Didn't you
>> know?
>
>I know precisely how the Canadian system works. I live in Canada. Our
>personal experience has been that we got great value.
>
>OTOH, we can tell you of a couple of horror stories from when we lived in
>the US. And paid out of our own pocket.
>
>Most of this discussion misses the point. That the medical *business* in
>the US is in effect a monopoly, with what amounts to a license to print
>money.

So true, devil, and I live in the US.

devil > wrote:

>> GWB is either insane, or on a constant high - maybe both.
>
>Nah. Just plain stupid. No need for fancy explanations.


So GWB is insane for committing the US to what JFK committed the US to
forty years earlier?


(Insanity is beside the point; I say they should immediately stop
stealing my money for any projects whatsoever.)

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

In article >, nobody >
wrote:

>> > America's health care the best in the world."
>
>Why does a country such as Cuba have significantly higher life expectancy?


A significantly higher ability of the Cuban government to make sure no
data other than official propaganda reaches the ears of credulous
foreign socialists?


>Why then are there so many kids in the USA who do not receive various
>shots/treatment to prevent diseases ?


Why does any of this "need" constitude a moral demand on my property?

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

nobody > wrote:

>Smokers also cost more to a health system.


Cubans, who smoke like chimnies, don't appear to be "costing" their
"health system" anything.

Oh. Wait.....

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

Jenn > wrote:
>,
> Mike1 > wrote:
>
>> Since when do the alleged "needs" of anybody for anything constitute a
>> moral demand upon another's property?
>
>since when is the wealth of individuals in the US the result of their
>individual virtue and effort and not the great good luck of where they
>were born....


Since when is other people's property any of YOUR business, provided
they didn't steal it?


>We all owe to the society that has made our lives so fat and easy.


Ambiguous-Collective fallacy.

Lemme help: http://home.mn.rr.com/meadowbrookhome/z/FALLACYS.HTM

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

In article >,
john > wrote:

> >
> >Most of this discussion misses the point. That the medical *business* in
> >the US is in effect a monopoly, with what amounts to a license to print
> >money.
>
> So true, devil, and I live in the US.

I have friends, and relatives, who are in the medical bidness.

They would dispute the point with you.
If they could ever get through the paperwork...

Heck, 30 years ago, a vascular surgeon of my acquaintance was paying
more thant $30K/yr in malpractice premiums alone (required before the
hospital he was associated with would let him practice).

He wasn't getting rich, certainly not working 80+ hours each week, I
don't know why he kept at as long as he did.

In article >, Go Fig >
wrote:

>In article >, Guy
> wrote:
>
>> If this money could be saved, think of what the U.S. could do with it. It
>> could be used to insure the estimated 40 million people presently uninsured
>
>Given the fact that those in America living at poverty level have;
>
>Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.


Nobody "actually owns their own home" in America, since property taxes
constitute de-facto government-ownership.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

devil > wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:59:22 -0800, Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
>> Canada's health care system is rationed such that curable breast cancer is a
>> death sentence. Canada's health care system fails to address women's health
>> care needs.
>
>You don't know anything about Canada and health care in Canada, do you?


It's certainly unlike, say, a third-world dive like India, where the
economy is obstensibly throroughly socialist but government scrutiny is
easy to avoid, and consequently you can get a cat-scan or an MRI for
about $10. -- How much do those cost in Canada?

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

devil > wrote:

>I know precisely how the Canadian system works. I live in Canada. Our
>personal experience has been that we got great value.
>
>OTOH, we can tell you of a couple of horror stories from when we lived in
>the US. And paid out of our own pocket.


That's because the American system is just, if not more so, *communist*
than yours. (It goes without saying that US tort litigation keeps
doctors out of their profession in droves.)

These days, to get decent, affordable health-care, you schedule a
vacation in a still nominally free-market country in southeast Asia, buy
it yourself, pay for the vacation with the differential, and still come
out ahead.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

BBC World is reporting that a recently released CDC report shows that
overeating and obesity is costing the USA over 75 billion dollars in
additional health care costs per year.


Bush is also refusing to accept a WHO request that countries curb overeating
and abusive consumption of sugar, wishing to protect the food industry in the
USA and stating instead that it is up to citizens to decide to eat less.

In the end, when a US company wishes to export widgets, the cost of the
widgets will be higher due to the higher health care costs in the USA.

Mike1 > wrote in
:

> In article >, Go Fig >
> wrote:
>
>>In article >, Guy
> wrote:
>>
>>> If this money could be saved, think of what the U.S. could do with it.
>>> It could be used to insure the estimated 40 million people presently
>>> uninsured
>>
>>Given the fact that those in America living at poverty level have;
>>
>>Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
>
>
> Nobody "actually owns their own home" in America, since property taxes
> constitute de-facto government-ownership.


Have you told this to homeowners in Tennessee
and Oregon, which have no property taxes?

nobody wrote
>Why then does a country such as Cuba have significantly
>higher life expectancy ?

http://www.who.int/health-systems-pe...ce/whr2000.htm
Life expectancy (years)
81.9 Japan
81.2 Monaco
80.6 San Marino
80.6 Switzerland
80.4 Australia
80.4 Sweden
80.3 Andorra
80.1 Iceland
79.8 Canada
79.7 France
79.7 Italy
79.6 Singapore
79.6 Spain
79.4 Austria
79.4 Israel
79.1 Norway
78.9 New Zealand
78.8 Luxembourg
78.7 Germany
78.6 Netherlands
78.4 Belgium
78.4 Greece
78.2 Finland
78.2 United Kingdom
78.1 Malta
77.3 Cyprus
77.3 United States of America
77.2 Denmark
77.1 Costa Rica
77.1 Cuba

On 01/21/2004 8:57 PM, in article
, "devil" >
opined:

> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:19:00 -0800, Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
>>
>> "devil" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:59:22 -0800, Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>>
>>>> Canada's health care system is rationed such that curable breast cancer
>> is a
>>>> death sentence. Canada's health care system fails to address women's
>> health
>>>> care needs.
>>>
>>> You don't know anything about Canada and health care in Canada, do you?
>>
>> Sure I do, if a woman goes without tretment for breast cancer for 6 months,
>> the Canadian Government will buy her a bus ticket to Vermont. Didn't you
>> know?
>
> I know precisely how the Canadian system works. I live in Canada. Our
> personal experience has been that we got great value.
>
> OTOH, we can tell you of a couple of horror stories from when we lived in
> the US. And paid out of our own pocket.
>
> Most of this discussion misses the point. That the medical *business* in
> the US is in effect a monopoly, with what amounts to a license to print
> money.
>

I agree with you in part. BUT, if the government gets more involved
vis-à-vis mssssssssssssssssssssss Clinton it will get A LOT worse.

Case in point, AMTRAK.

--
================================================== ========================
"When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit, the
artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint. In like manner
here, both sides must part with some of their demands," Benjamin Franklin
(1706-1790)
================================================== ========================

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:23:59 -0800, Steve Hix wrote:

> In article >,
> john > wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Most of this discussion misses the point. That the medical *business* in
>> >the US is in effect a monopoly, with what amounts to a license to print
>> >money.
>>
>> So true, devil, and I live in the US.
>
> I have friends, and relatives, who are in the medical bidness.
>
> They would dispute the point with you.
> If they could ever get through the paperwork...
>
> Heck, 30 years ago, a vascular surgeon of my acquaintance was paying
> more thant $30K/yr in malpractice premiums alone (required before the
> hospital he was associated with would let him practice).
>
> He wasn't getting rich, certainly not working 80+ hours each week, I
> don't know why he kept at as long as he did.

I suppose there are a few honest ones left.

The other ones have incorporated. :-)

As to malpractice, I wish we would have more of this on this side of the
border. I also wish their premiums ought to be public knowledge. Would
help even more in putting the bad ones out of business.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:07:38 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> the one sure thing when healthcare is turned over to for profits is that
>> the costs go way up -- and service goes down
>>
>
> It's the other way round. Free market competition keeps cost down and
> service up.

The very thing you don't currently have, incidentally.

"devil" > wrote in message
news
>
> The very thing you don't currently have, incidentally.
>

We don't have it in health care, that's true.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care needs
> > of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of during
> > that period?
> >
>
> Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far more
> affordable than it is today.

The government's that meddled......were they socialist, capitalist or what?
I say capitalist, just to **** up what honest leftist were trying to do.

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > link.net...
> > > >
> > > > "john" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care
> needs
> > > > > of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of
during
> > > > > that period?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far more
> > > > affordable than it is today.
> > >
> > > I remember when our family doctor could no longer charge $10 for an
> office
> > > call and had to raise the price to $35, for the sake of medicare.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > explain that -- how did medicare raise his prices?
>
> The price of an office visit was regulatorily required to be the same for
> everyone, with Medicare setting the piece work price.
>
> Medicare drives up medical costs for everyone.

You think the capitalists that instituted medicare really wanted it to
succeed in the long run. They set up a straw man just for it to fail. When
it would fail they'd say socialised medicine doesn't work so may as well
have laissez faire capitalism again.

"moveeman1" > wrote in
:

>> The price of an office visit was regulatorily required to be the
>> same for everyone, with Medicare setting the piece work price.
>>
>> Medicare drives up medical costs for everyone.
>
> You think the capitalists that instituted medicare really wanted it
> to succeed in the long run. They set up a straw man just for it to
> fail. When it would fail they'd say socialised medicine doesn't
> work so may as well have laissez faire capitalism again.

Of course, the argument is specious because it does work everywhere it
has been implemented. The US is a holdout and dinosaur in this area
anmong all the G7 nations. In fact, Canada's health care is what made
it the number one country to live in in the UN poll five years in a
row. It was only when health care was threatened with US-style methods
that we lost our number one status.

--
"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article .net>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > "john" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care needs
> > > of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of during
> > > that period?
> > >
> >
> > Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far more
> > affordable than it is today.
> >
> >
>
> the overhead for medicare is tiny compared to private insurance companies
>
> the one sure thing when healthcare is turned over to for profits is that
> the costs go way up -- and service goes down
>
> there are problems of providing a high cost high demand service with
> limited resources through government -- but none of these are solved by
> private markets unless leaving people without care and bankrupting
> everyone else with medical problems is the solution one is after

Medicare costs so much because the drugs costs so much! The drugs costs
so much because the big pharma drug companies have to do FDA mandated drug
tests that costs from 200 million to 650 million each and then they can
patent their useless concoctions and have exclusive rights to them and then
literally soak the people with obscene markups in prices. What follows is a
short explanation from the 'Life extension Foundation' on what drugs really
costs!

[ Do you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company to obtain the active
ingredient in a prescription medication? Life Extension did a search of
offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found in
drugs approved by the FDA.

WHAT DRUGS REALLY COST
BRAND NAME CONSUMER PRICE
(For 100 tabs/caps) COST OF GENERIC ACTIVE INGREDIENT
(For 100 tabs/caps) PERCENT MARKUP
Celebrex 100 mg $130.27 $0.60 21,712%
Claritin 10 mg $215.17 $0.71 30,306%
Keflex 250 mg $157.39 $1.88 8,372%
Lipitor 20 mg $272.37 $5.80 4,696%
Norvasc 10 mg $188.29 $0.14 134,493%
Paxil 20 mg $220.27 $7.60 2,898%
Prevacid 30 mg $344.77 $1.01 34,136%
Prilosec 20 mg $360.97 $0.52 69,417%
Prozac 20 mg $247.47 $0.11 224,973%
Tenormin 50 mg $104.47 $0.13 80,362%
Vasotec 10 mg $102.37 $0.20 51,185%
Xanax 1mg $136.79 $0.024 569,958%
Zestril 20 mg $89.89 $3.20 2,809%
Zithromax 600mg $1,482.19 $18.78 7,892%
Zocor 40mg $350.27 $8.63 4,059%
Zoloft 50mg $206.87 $1.75 11,821%
A significant percentage of drugs sold in the United States contain active
ingredients that are actually synthesized in other countries. Drug companies
import these active ingredients into the United States where they wind up in
the expensive drugs you buy at the local pharmacy. While the FDA says you
cannot trust drugs from other countries, the facts are that most of the
drugs sold in the United States contain active ingredients synthesized in
the very countries the FDA says you cannot trust.

In our independent investigation of how much profit drug companies really
make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the
most popular drugs sold in America. The chart to the right speaks for
itself.

The astounding profit margin enjoyed by drug companies exposes several
facts. First, it shows why the pharmaceutical industry is the most
profitable of all businesses. But since large drug companies only make
around 15% net profit margins, it also exposes the incredible cost drug
companies bear to comply with today's burdensome drug approval system.* If
the FDA relaxed its drug approval standards, the cost of bringing new
patented drugs could be reduced. ]]

As you can see these are obscene markups in prices compared to actual
costs of the ingredients in the medicine! Is this an across the board policy
of the capitalist right winger's just to downgrade socialistic leftwing
ideas. I only have to say that left wing principles should be implemented by
left wingers, not pseudo left winger's.

Mike1 wrote:
>
>>Why then are there so many kids in the USA who do not receive various
>>shots/treatment to prevent diseases ?

> Why does any of this "need" constitude a moral demand on my property?
>

Read any Dickens lately? You, sir, are Scrooge personified. The chains
on Marley's ghost will be nothing compared to yours.

Honestly, it's hard to believe sentiments like yours still exist.

"Sara" > wrote in message ...
.. When the middle class and a lot of hardworking people are
> priced out of the US healthcare system, there is something wrong here.
> The insurance companies continue to make the same

I don't really see that the middle class or even the working class is priced
out of the system. What you tend to find are a lot of people who can afford
it but opt out. For example, I'm in my late 30s and pay less than $2500 per
year for good coverage with a HMO.

Jarg

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
>
> The government's that meddled......were they socialist, capitalist or
what?
>

Socialist.


>
> I say capitalist, just to **** up what honest leftist were trying to do.
>

It would have been hard for the capitalists to do, as the socialists were in
power.

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
>
> You think the capitalists that instituted medicare really wanted it to
> succeed in the long run. They set up a straw man just for it to fail. When
> it would fail they'd say socialised medicine doesn't work so may as well
> have laissez faire capitalism again.
>

Capitalists did not institute Medicare.

Then why does the US system costs so much. Just compare the drug prices in
canada with those in the US. Why do American seniors have to buy their drugs
from canada if they can?


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > the one sure thing when healthcare is turned over to for profits is that
> > the costs go way up -- and service goes down
> >
>
> It's the other way round. Free market competition keeps cost down and
> service up.
>
>

So explain this Gov't meddling then.

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:43:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"john" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >>
> > >> So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care
needs
> > >> of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of during
> > >> that period?
> > >>
> > >
> > >Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far more
> > >affordable than it is today.
> > >
> >
> > So wasn't EVERYTHING more affordable then?
>
> No.
>
> > So government meddling caused things to cost more?
>
> Usually.
>
>

So explain how.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So government meddling caused things to cost more?
> >
>
> Yup.
>
>

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
> So explain this Gov't meddling then.

Government medling leads to jobs for friends and larger sums of money
controlled by Government. Sometimes, Government can create a "black
market", in certain goods, and members of Government can engage in
"organized crime". The latter situation being inherently more profitable
than the first.

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "john" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:43:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"john" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > > >>
> > > >> So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care
> needs
> > > >> of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of
during
> > > >> that period?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far more
> > > >affordable than it is today.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So wasn't EVERYTHING more affordable then?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > So government meddling caused things to cost more?
> >
> > Usually.
> >
> >
>
>

You don't mind drafting the sons and daughter's of the poor to FORCE therm
to put their lives at stake in order to keep in place your favorite
political system. Then you complain about your right to private property.
You don't then complain about a person's right to their own private life and
the right to not go if they don't wish too, do you, while you will bleat
rather loudly about your right to your own private property? Some are forced
to give their lives by those who resent being forced to pay taxes.
Hypocrites!

"Mike1" > wrote in message
...
> Jenn > wrote:
> >,
> > Mike1 > wrote:
> >
> >> Since when do the alleged "needs" of anybody for anything constitute a
> >> moral demand upon another's property?
> >
> >since when is the wealth of individuals in the US the result of their
> >individual virtue and effort and not the great good luck of where they
> >were born....
>
>
> Since when is other people's property any of YOUR business, provided
> they didn't steal it?
>
>
> >We all owe to the society that has made our lives so fat and easy.
>
>
> Ambiguous-Collective fallacy.
>
> Lemme help: http://home.mn.rr.com/meadowbrookhome/z/FALLACYS.HTM
>
> --
>
> Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
>
> "An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
> -- Ambrose Bierce