"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
diggerop wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news

... snip

In the US, we have 87% of people satisfied with their insurance. For
13%
of our people, we are proposing a government takeover of 1/6 of the
economy
(the only way they will save money is by rationing) and spending over $2
Trillion dollars in the next 10 years) -- and government programs never
cost what they are originally projected nor deliver the results
promised.
Seems a steep price to pay.


It will interest me greatly to see where it all ends up for the US.



... and herein lies the heart of the issue. The statists often use the
argument that the United States is the only industrialized country in the
world that does not have socialized medicine and therefore we should get
with it and join the rest of the industrialized, free and oppressed world
in implementing it as well. I would turn that around and state that the
United States is the only industrialized country in the world that has a
free market in health care with which 87% of its citizens are satisfied
with their health care. If elements of the remaining 13% are so intent on
the need for a socialized system and feel so strongly that socialized
medicine is so critical, I would suggest that they leave the remaining 87%
alone and find one of the other industrialized countries with socialized
medicine,


That would solve that problem. (We'd probably be glad to have a lot of them,
as long as they weren't lawyers.) Then the ones that don't like gun
ownership could also leave, along with those who object to the US being
involved militarily in other countries. Then there's the ones that want
nuclear disarmament and the ones that want freedom of choice on abortion,
the ones who feel they are over-taxed and under represented, the ones who
want even less government than you have now. Left leaning media
organisations could also follow suit along with all the greenies. Last but
not least, every registered Democrat. You could have a really good cleanout.
Sounds like utopia to me.


there are enough that they can pick the strength of flavor of
socialism they desire and, along with their wealth and skills emigrate to
that country where they can enjoy the benefits of the socialized health
care system they so crave. I am sure that any of those countries would be
more than happy to have productive, useful people add to their GDP. Why
is
it that people want to take away free choice from the only country that
still has it?

I'm sympathetic to the freedom from government interference part of your
view, and also the unwillingness to give up freedom of choice. In a
nutshell, we managed to keep the parts that enable us to retain freedom of
choice. Government interference? It's their very nature and intended
purpose. - in all facets of life. Easily fixed if a majority want it that
way. Just abolish government and let your lives become an unfettered
free-for -all.

... snip of Australian medical advances

Very good, although I think you might get some pushback on the penicillin
credits -- Fleming of England discovered it and Florey's work was achieved
at Oxford. I would also note that a significant number of those
breakthroughs seem to have come before your 20 years ago comment about the
start of socialized medicine.


We've had socialised healthcare since 1975, in various guises. Instituted
by the left, almost immediately partially dismantled by the right when they
gained office in the same year, re-named Medicare and it's 1975 components
re-instated when Labor won office again in 1984. The 20 years I referred to
was about when I still had the view that it was no good and unworkable.
Subsequent to that, my view began to shift. For about the last ten years,
the federal government has also encouraged private health fund membership
via a tax rebate of up to 30% of premiums.
Interestingly, had it been an election issue at the time it was instituted
it would have been soundly defeated. It was unpopular on both sides of the
electorate. Also, like most people, we hate change, simply because it is
change.

We're a very parochial lot, us Aussies. We'll fiercely claim as our own
anyone who can in any way be called an Aussie. As an example, we've had
elite athletes who were born and raised overseas
were fostered and developed in their field overseas, who then emigrated to
Australia and took out citizenship. Any achievement will then be trumpeted
as "Australian Champion ........"
On the other side of the coin, one of this year's Nobel Laureates was a
woman, born in Australia but living in the US and now an American citizen.
Our local newspaper saw no problem in reporting her win with the headline
"Australian wins Nobel Prize" : )

diggerop