On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, said this:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...

And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
run it, right?

Did I say that? No? Well then.

In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.

In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
might be done about that?

That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
"bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
buerocracy involved.

And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
al least only one level of incompetence.