From: dxxb@milton.u.washington.edu (David W. Barts)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: NBC News report on Jerry Brown
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:45:41 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <MS-C.702788024.662824084.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:
> [re: Jerry Brown's flat tax]

Well, I'll be perfectly honest and admit I have misgivings about Brown's
tax proposal as it currently stands.  If all other things were equal
between Brown and Clinton, I'd probably support Clinton.  But all other
things are *not* equal....

>No gas tax?  Be real!  Gasoline is subject to the VAT too.  In VAT
>countries you pay about as much for a litre of gas as you pay for a
>gallon here.  Besides, no US government will never axe the gas tax; it
>is the fattest source of revenue in this country.  Even though gas
>taxes are supposed to be used solely for roads in reality it's a fat
>goose that is plucked for all sorts or programs.

This topic has already been discussed at length here and I do not wish
to elaborate on it any more.  Suffice it to say that this statement is
highly questionable.

>Let me also remind you that those boondoggle government programs Jerry
>Brown refers to also include Metro.  No more free bus rides in
>downtown Seattle; no more subsidized fares and bus passes.  Metro fans
>may feel differently about it if they had to pay the true cost of
>Metro.

Rubbish.  From Phil Hughes's Brown listserver:
:As Governor, Jerry Brown recognized the importance of transportation
:policy to future development.
:
:Van and car pooling (e.g., carpool lanes on bridges and highways) led
:to saving 79 million gallons of gasoline and cutting air pollution by
:45,000 tons of emissions; and the number of miles of carpool lanes has
:continued to grow.
:
:During his terms, mass transit ridership increased by more than 90%,
:to 1.2 billion riders. He signed an Omnibus Mass Transportation Bill,
:providing $368 million for mass transit facilities. Funding for
:intermodal facilities (where 2 or more modes of transit come together)
:increased the convenience, and thus the use of mass transit. He signed
:laws authorizing several railway projects, including the McCloud River
:Railroad and rail service between San Diego....

>Let's talk about universal health coverage.  Why do Canada's rich come
>down to the US for medical treatment?  The reason is simple: they
>don't want to wait for over a year with a life-threatening condition
>waiting for Canada's socialized medicine to get around to taking care
>of them.  It's a scandal that every Canadian newspaper covers at one
>time or another.

Again, rubbish.  Patients with life-threatening situations to *not*
have to wait for treatment in Canada; they are given first priority for
services.  Those waiting have non-life-threatening conditions.  And the
major cause of the lengthening waiting lists for non-life-threatening
conditions has been the failure of successive P-C (Socred in BC)
governments to adequately fund health care.  (This under-funding has
been one of the reasons behind the recent rise in popularity of
the NDP.)

This is to be contrasted with the United States, where patients with
life-threatening conditions who cannot prove they can afford treatment
often end up being shuttled between the emergency rooms of different
hospitals like hot potatoes, all the while the clock is ticking and
their condition is deteriorating.

If public health care were even half the disaster you paint it as,
there would be opposition parties clamoring for the privatization of
health care in every major Western democracy (and these opposition
parties would win elections, and carry out their promised
privatization).  But *none* of these countries have such a movement.
Not a single one.  To pick a timely example, ALL THREE major British
parties' manifestos for today's election come out firmly in favor of
universal health care and the NHS.  Yes, Mark, this includes the
Tories.

>Socialized medicine is great if you're normally healthy and only need
>an occasional doctor's visit for an earache or a broken leg.  It is an
>absolute disaster if you are critically ill.  From the perspective of
>socialized medicine, it's better if you die if you are critically
>ill; that way you won't consume resources.

For-profit medicine is great if one is independently wealthy, works for
a large employer that can afford the benefits plans (like UW), or if
one does not need major medical care and can prove that one is not
likely to need it.  It is an absolute disaster otherwise.

From the perspective of for-profit medicine, it's better if you die if
you can't afford treatment; human life has no intrinsic value and
profit margins exist to be maximized whatever the costs in human
terms.

--
David Barts  N5JRN			UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
dxxb@u.washington.edu			Seattle, WA  98195
          Health care for people, not for profits!
Newsgroups: seattle.general