On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:01:49 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
In the absence of unlimited resources, what's best for *the* patient of
the doctor/dentist/whatever at any one time might not be best for
patients in general. That's where economics and politics come in. There
isn't, and never could be, enough money to give the best treatment to
every patient.

Quite. Which is why the state should not be involved in healthcare.

And you *seriously* think a private insurance company would pay out for
any treatment no matter how expensive?

Of course if you pay direct you can the very best that money can buy.
Would ne nice to be in that position...


To be more specific, I don't think that the state should be involved
in the *delivery* of healthcare - just organising the funding on a low
admin cost basis.


--

..andy