On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:53:59 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

As I've said to in the past, you seem to be one of those 'I'm alright,
sod
you' types, the only people who would benefit form your approach are
those

That assertion does not seem to fit in with Andy's statement "...that
works well when I want it *and* still be able to contribute into a pot
for those who are not able to do so to a far more cost effective
extent than today." [my emphasis] does it?


I suggest you find out just how many 'above poverty' Americans fall through
there so called health care system before supporting a 'non free at point of
use' health care system....

Even countries with socialised medicine have charges at the point of
delivery - e.g. small payment for GP visits, exempted for the poorest.
AFAIK, Britain is the only country that attempts a free at the point
of delivery system. It's an outdated nonsense.




It's fine if you have the means to pay for what you need, but if you haven't
it's all to easy to find yourself in a void in the system.

Sigh.... Which is why the government should deliver healthcare by
means of vouchers available to everybody and adequate to purchase
healthcare from a variety of sources according to choice.
Those wishing to add to it can then do so without the double financial
penalties that exist today.

The point is not about the government making provision for healthcare
cover for everybody, but being involved in the delivery of the actual
services. In other words, government should make the financial but
not the delivery arrangements.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl