Post by A BForwarded (again) from Vicki Ickes, who's been having some trouble with
----------
NO .... FOR OBAMA CARE !
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/congressional-republicans-speak-out-against-obamas-plan-for-government-owne/
(And here's my own reply, not Vicki's.)
I always remember that many of the things Republican politicians claimed
about the original Affordable Care Act before it was introduced turned out
to be just not true, or else weird distortions of the truth. (The famous
"death panels". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panels ) So I take
their opinions on it with a large pinch of salt.
Post by A B"I'm opposed to the government option, period," Boehner said at his weekly
press conference Thursday. "If you like going to the DMV and you think they
do a great job, or if you like going to the post office and think it's the
most efficient thing you've run into, then you'll love the >government-run
health care system, because that's basically what you're going to have."
Sounds obvious, is actually wrong. A recent study found that Great
Britain's (government-run) National Health Service is the second most
cost-effective (not quite the same thing, but suggestive) in the developed
world. It also saved among the most lives, per million of the population.
The USA's current system falls near the bottom!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services
Which makes a lot of sense to me. If your treatment is being commissioned
by your insurers, well, they're not the ones who'll be paying, are they?
Not in the long run - they'll just raise your premium next year. So there
isn't a lot of incentive for them to worry about whether they (you) are
being had, or whether the treatment that's being pushed is the best or just
the most profitable.
Post by A BSenator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the ranking member on the Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and >Pensions Committee, which is drafting a health care
bill, said that Republicans fear a government >plan would crowd private
insurance out, violating a promise made by Obama himself that people >with
private insurance could keep it.
This is repeated throughout the article, but never explained. Why should it
crowd private insurance out? Here in the UK we've had a goverment-run
health service for 50 years, and there are still several thriving private
healthcare and health insurance firms, though relatively few people want to
use them because the free service is so good. They're mostly used by people
who have them as a "perk" of their jobs. The whole claim that providing
publicly-funded treatment is somehow denying privately-funded treatment to
those who can afford it has me baffled.
All the best,
--
A. B.
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.