Re: [A-List] Re: A-List digest, Vol 1 #342 - 10 msgs

["Christopher Black" <bar@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Anne,

Well the state takes very good care of everyone here in Canada as far as
healthcare is concerned. Everything is free, I can see any doctor I want and
it is the best care in the world. What we pay in extra taxes to cover the
costs is a lot lower than what you pay in insurance premiums and for the
poor there is no cost whatsoever.

The private insurance health care system in the States is insane to us and
we just cannot understand why the US is the only major western industrial
democracy not to provide this.

I have an uncle in Carmel California who had to come up with $250,000 for a
triple bypass operation a couple of years ago. My father in Toronot had the
same operation around the same time. Didn't cost him a dime. Go figure.

The point is, the state should not be involving itself in private contracts.
It should eliminate them and make health care a public service.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Annewilliamson" <Annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [A-List] Re: A-List digest, Vol 1 #342 - 10 msgs


> Medical insurance was once a private contract, which could be cancelled
and
> replaced if the client so chose from those firms competing for the
client's
> business, which was properly the source of their profits and therefore
their
> survival.  Consequently, the insurance companies worked to get clients by
> providing superior service.  The state's involvement in the insurance
> industry has corrupted the industry, and compromised the private contract
to
> the transacting of insurance.  And, BTW, the insurance companies are
largely
> a "client" of the RNC - and it is Republicans who have led the charge to
> guarantee those clients' their business through regulations and indirect
> public subsidies.
>
> And why on earth would anyone hand their medical care over to an insurance
> company?  Medical insurance is reimbursement for costs, a private
contract,
> not responsibility for treatment -- that's where the state got involved,
and
> empowered the insurance companies to make decisions about treatment since
> regulation made them liable for every stitch and every pill.  This problem
> is but one aspect of the consequences of the state involving itself in
> private contracts for the "public good."  Ha, ha - now there's a non
> sequitur and an oxymoron!
>
> Far better in today's Big Brother world to purchase catastrophe insurance
> only (very low premiums), save your money, take care of yourself, and be
in
> a position to decide your own treatment if and when necessary.  Today, I
> agree, neither the state nor the state-regulated/subsidized/controlled
> insurance companies are anyone's "friend."
>
> Anne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <sherrynstan@xxxxxxx>
> To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [A-List] Re: A-List digest, Vol 1 #342 - 10 msgs
>
>
> >
> > > When you hand over medical care to the state,
> > > you make yourself
> > > the property of the state.
> >
> > So if you hand over medical care to an insurance company, do you become
> the
> > property of the insurance company?
> >
> > Your libertarian non sequiturs are showing again, Anne.
> >
> >
>
>
>