On Jan 31, 7:46 pm, Strabo wrote:
Hawke wrote:
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:00:25 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 30, 7:46 pm, Bob Brock wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:25:00 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:15 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
For those of you who care one way or another,
Damn glad you pulled through. Hoping for a speedy recovery.
Why? It's just another set of medical bills that he won't be able to
pay. I wish he could actually get what he wishes on others.
I don't wish harm on anyone. Not even on you.
After the **** that he said about my wife, when she had brain cancer,
I could care less whether he lives or dies. However, since his
welfare medical treatment causes those of us who pay our medical bills
to pay higher rates, it would be better if he got the medical care
that he wishes on others.

Wouldn't you think that someone that is strongly against universal health
care and who believes that everyone should pay their own way, including
their own health insurance, shouldn't be taking anything from the state? I
mean, when you say you have to take personal responsibility and then you
don't buy your own health insurance isn't it wrong to ask the state to pay
for you? Would he be so tolerant of a poor ghetto youth getting free heart
surgery? You know he wouldn't. He said everyone should pay his own way but
then takes free health care when he's in trouble. What kind of a person does
that?

Hawke

Think about it.

Universal health care is envisioned by the public as cradle-to-grave
medical care with full access to the same services and surgeries
as received by those with full insurance coverage.

Where current costs to the individual minimize medical visits,
such would not be the case when all believe that medical coverage
is free and their right.

This is not possible. Most of the GNP would have to be diverted from
education and defense to meet such expectations.

Not only that but these great expectations would expand the political
importance of the medical industry and create vast opportunities for
payola and fraud.

Rubbish. The US spends more per capita on health care than any other
developed country, but still has relatively poor outcomes in terms of
mortality (eg, Cuba has better infant mortality rates).....

Its a bit like your banking system (remember when you had one?) where
the CEO's skim off billions before any benefit accrues to the
"customers" - now, that was a spectacular failure and had to be bailed
out by "government intervention" - . Oh, and BTW - seems like the
CEO's of the banks were STILL paying themselves 35 billion dollars in
"bonuses" while grabbing the Gov. cash to bail them out....it would be
cheaper for you all if you got rid of your ideologically driven health
system that, like the banks, is clearly not working by any standard of
objective performance.

Andrew VK3BFA

This is not possible. Most of the GNP would have to be diverted from
education and defense to meet such expectations.

Not only that but these great expectations would expand the political
importance of the medical industry and create vast opportunities for
payola and fraud.

Rubbish. The US spends more per capita on health care than any other
developed country, but still has relatively poor outcomes in terms of
mortality (eg, Cuba has better infant mortality rates).....

Its a bit like your banking system (remember when you had one?) where
the CEO's skim off billions before any benefit accrues to the
"customers" - now, that was a spectacular failure and had to be bailed
out by "government intervention" - . Oh, and BTW - seems like the
CEO's of the banks were STILL paying themselves 35 billion dollars in
"bonuses" while grabbing the Gov. cash to bail them out....it would be
cheaper for you all if you got rid of your ideologically driven health
system that, like the banks, is clearly not working by any standard of
objective performance.

Andrew VK3BFA

Well said, Andrew!