Bill wrote:


I didn't read many posts before I jumped in. But, what's the
difference between
what you described above and taxation? I think the newly proposed
system is intended to help the poor--yes, at a cost to those that are
in a better position.
But....as you know, our health care system costs are wrecking havoc
on our country.
FWIW, I have republican ideals but I am sensitive to the needs of the
mentally
disabled, for instance, too. Some folks need medicine more than they
need a Unisaw. One could argue that health is a more basic need than
that of machinery.
I believe we are to great a country to allow people to suffer because
they don't
have a health care plan.


I know I'm going to regret jumping into this pond. I just damned well know
it...

We already have comprehensive health care for all classes of people. The
existing programs have some problems and need some tweaking. Some of that
tweaking is really not all that difficult. For example - it's easy to
re-legislate Medicare such that a family does not have to sacrifice their
entire life's efforts, or reach a point of being completely destitute, in
order to qualify, or realize the benefits. Likewise Medicaid. It would not
take an awful lot to make those programs more serving than they currently
are. To cater to the leftists out there, it would not even take a lot to
regulate the health care industry such that profits, compensation, etc. that
seem to so anger some, are held to what they consider more reasonable
levels.

Yeah - taxes would pay for this. They already do to a very large extent.
Reorganization would not require new taxes, but would require more brain
work than most government employess exhibit. Fixing what is broken is a
better approach than engineering a new system. But - that also takes more
effort, since engineering a new approach has the advantage of starting of
vague, and building upon a bunch of promises. Promises - the things
politicians are made of - they just don't deliver on them.

--

-Mike-