SOCIALISM is not "compassion."
Why should I or you have to pay for a cigerette smoker's lung cancer?
Why should I or you have to pay for some obese person (30% of the population here compared to 7% in
France) who cannot keep their car out of the Burger King's drive thru window?
Why should I or you have to pay for people who won't get off their lazy asses or the couch
to exercise?
Why should I or you have to pay for some ****s ABORTION (Billary's
dead body.
Why should I or you pay for someone's liver problems cause they are an alcoholic?
Why should I or you be forced into a single payer system cause so called 40 million people cannot
manage their money/finances correctly to pay for healthcare? Rather they spend it on cigs, alcohol,
drugs, gold teeth, $1000 stero systems and car rims and on and on and on...
Oh and btw...that 40 million is not the same people. That gap is people going in and out of
insurance due mostly to job changes, etc.
What I have come to find Dems, especially the left fringe who wanna make us like Europe is that the
definition of liberalism has become...
To take from those who have and make good decisions and choices and give to those that do not.
Simply put, spreading misery around equally. Hardly "compassion."
And guess what? I am part of that infamous 40 million without insurance right now. Get the govt
involved and what the quality go down. Watch the govt close hospitals like they do in Canada cause
the govt cannot afford it leaving many without care. Watch what England is threatening to do and
that is FORCE obese people on a diet or lose your benefits. Do we really want the govt doing that?
If so, where does it stop?
I rather live in a society where we have CHOICES free from govt intervention
ups.
SAY NO TO NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE!!!
Trent
> From:
[email protected] Organization: WebTV Subscriber Newsgroups:
> alt.health,alt.gorets,alt.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003
> 03:24:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Time For Single Payer System
>
> I've given up trying to argue with Republicans on the need of a national health insurance system
> here, like they have in all the rest of all the advanced and civilized democracies of the world. I
> swear, especially in these newsgroups, it seems obvious that Republicans just take an evil delight
> in seeing their fellow human beings suffer. So screw the Repugs. I want to debate with people who
> really do have compassion, not those who blatantly lie about having it.
>
> Why we need a "single payer" system. Because Doctors waste most of their invaluable time, with one-
> fourth of the cost of their medical care being wasted on complicated burueacracies, such as on
> HMO's who micromanage their decisions, and on consulting formularies before they can prescribe
> medicines, & on the filling out of hundreds of long, complicated and confusing insurance forms,
> e.t.c. This is also referred to as "overhead" cost. What Doctors would rather do is spend their
> time caring for sick people.
>
> One fourth of the cost of our medical care could be shaved off if we had a "single payer" system.
> That is, a single streamlined system, minus the bureacracy. The government run Medicare system
> does this, and their overhead cost is only 2%.
>
> There's no reason why we shouldn't have a "single payer" national health plan, like they have in
> the rest of the non-Republican democratic and civilized world? Keep in mind that a national health
> plan is not supposed to be a 1st class system that is superior to every thing else. It is for
> those hapless souls who have no health insurance at all. And so it may not seem like much of a
> service to the likes of fascists like Rush Limbaugh, and they will inevitably deride it ad
> nauseum, but to the 40+ million Americans who have no health insurance at all, it is EVERYTHING to
> them, and a definite life saver.
>
> Abel Malcolm
http://www.amnesty.org
> _______
>
> Time for single payer?
>
> Ruth Rosen
>
> Monday, December 29, 2003
>
> San Francisco Chronicle
>
> sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/29/EDGS53U1CM1.DTL
>
> DON'T BE SURPRISED if health care turns out to be the sleeper issue in the 2004 presidential
> campaign and if a majority of Americans eventually decide that a single-payer system is the most
> cost-efficient way to provide health care for everyone.
>
> Why? Because our health system -- a fragmented hodgepodge of private and public-health plans --
> is broken.
>
> HMOs -- which pay huge amounts for administrative and bureaucratic costs, advertising and
> skyrocketing drug prices -- no longer can contain costs. They have also turned the health-care
> system into a blizzard of paperwork.
>
> Physicians who recently resisted a single-payer system have grown increasingly resentful of HMO
> bureaucrats who micromanage their medical decisions. Inadequate reimbursements are driving some
> out of business. They also dislike having to consult dozens of drug lists or formularies before
> they can prescribe medicine for their patients. They'd rather spend time caring for sick people.
>
> Businesses, which seek a level playing field, may also become supporters of a single-payer system.
> Consider the inequities they face. General Motors, which has a huge group of retired workers, must
> pay for their lifetime health costs. Newer companies, however, either don't offer health-care
> benefits to workers or retired workers or don't yet have any retired workers to worry about.
>
> Labor, too, is a natural constituency for a single-payer system. The three-monthlong grocery
> workers' strike in Southern California against major supermarkets has highlighted the burden
> businesses now bear for paying for their workers' health care. How can Safeway, which has paid
> decent wages and benefits, compete with union-busting Wal-Mart, which pays subsistence wages and
> offers health-care insurance at unaffordable premiums?
>
> It can't. To avoid a race to the bottom, each employer should not have to pay for their
> workers' health care. Instead, through an equitable tax, they should contribute to a single-
> payer health system.
>
> And don't forget the 40 million uninsured Americans. Soon after the Medicare bill passed, Senate
> Majority leader Bill Frist announced that Republicans would next try to address the medical needs
> of those who lack medical insurance. These are people whose votes could be captured by any
> candidate who promises to reduce their anxieties about getting health care.
>
> The wealthy, too, may come to view single payer as a better alternative. Why? Because one of the
> best kept secrets in the United States, according to the American Hospital Association, is that 80
> percent of our emergency rooms are overcrowded and the average wait is four hours. The poor, of
> course, already know this. But when middle class and wealthy Americans with heart attacks or
> serious injuries discover that they, too, may be diverted from one hospital to another, they may
> reconsider the value of their "excellent" medical insurance.
>
> The fact is, most hospitals operate with "a just-in-time inventory" that works just fine for an
> average Tuesday evening in May. But on a Saturday night during the winter flu season, emergency
> rooms are filled with children and elderly people with high temperatures, along with heart attack
> victims and people bleeding from knife or gunshot wounds. (Don't even think about what might
> happen after a bio-terrorist attack, a fire or an earthquake.) Triage nurses must decide who will
> receive medical attention. When all the emergency rooms are filled to capacity, some patients lie
> on gurneys in the hall, waiting for an intensive-care bed and monitor.
>
> By contrast, a single-payer system would reduce the burden on emergency rooms by providing
> everyone with primary care in physicians' offices and outpatient facilities.
>
> A single-payer system would also cost less. The overhead for Medicare is only 2 percent; for
> private insurance it is up to 25 percent.
>
> Health care is a human right, not a privilege. If you don't believe this now, you might change
> your mind if and when you find yourself in need of life- saving care in a hospital emergency room.
>
> E-mail Ruth Rosen at
[email protected] 
