"Ed Huntress" wrote:

So what is the balance? If government provides healthcare it will be at a
level. It
likely won't be at a level that will pay for your heart transplant if you
need it. It
will be average health care. Or will it be the two level system, peons
and those with
resources?

Most of the models that have been considered by policymakers in the US leave
open the opportunity for private care and private insurance. We have a
medical center near here (Princeton Longevity Center) that's basically for
rich people. Insurance either covers none of it, or only a small portion. I
understand that they have a lot of business.

Canada didn't leave that option open but if I have not been seduced by propaganda, they
turn the blind eye to private care and insurance.

I doubt if the US would, at least in our lifetimes, impose a fixed level of
care on everyone, if they can pay for it themselves. So, yes, I expect a
two-tier system.

I agree.



I think some people that support national health care think they are going
to get the gold
plated health care a CEO of a Fortune 100 or a Senator gets. No, I think
it will be
closer to health care in a welfare state.

But which welfare state? Some of them are very effective. Almost all of them
in the developed world produce much better outcomes than ours does. They're
weaker on certain kinds of extreme critical care, but vastly better on
preventive and early care.

This is where it gets thorny. I'm a Everyman for himself type of guy that recognizes that
if misfortune hits me I need help. How we strike the balance is the policy issue. Price
it right, make sure deadbeats are not in the pool and I'll pony up money against
misadventure or bad health.

I likely trimmed too much. Sorry.


This is a complex subject, and I have no desire to go around on it again. I
just did that a few months ago. d8-)

It is hideously complex. And since life is riding on it, it is very personal. I can be
pragmatic on the Detroit thing but screw that when it comes to me living another day.

Wes