From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Objections to National Health Plan (was: HIAA and Reform)
Date: 13 Dec 92 03:41:36 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)

In article <1992Dec8.171033.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu>, 
tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105) writes:
|> In article <50269@shamash.cdc.com>, rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) writes:
|> > The only practical way to do this is implementing a single-payer national
|> > health plan.  I think Consumers Reports did a good job at showing this.

|>    I get it now. You think that your concept of universal care is
|>    fair and equitable, but then you go on to say that _I_ should
|>    be forced to join your plan. Well, everyone is different you
|>    know - we _are_ apples, oranges and, no doubt, lemons
|>    too...

I guess you are suggesting that the "lemons" should be left alone to
die in a corner once they have found themselves ill and with no medical
care.  Correct? 
 
|>    Here are some of those fruits which don't fit neatly into your
|>    fruitcake:-
|> 
|>    o - those who do not wish for any medical care because of
|>    religious or philosophical reasons. Why make them pay for
|>    nothing?

Will these people have some label on them that tells the emergency
crews who would pick them up after an accident that they should be
left to die on the side of the road?  If they are taken to a hospital
"by mistake", who would pay for that?
 
|>    o - those who take great care of themselves so as to minimize
|>    the diseases of old age. Why should they subsidize those who
|>    smoke 40 a day?

There are many cases of people who take very good care of themselves
and suddenly find themselves in a catastrophic health situation.  As
there are people who smoke and drink and get to live to be 100 years
old.  As you said, things are not so simple.  Anybody can end up
requiring expensive medical treatment.
 
|>    o - those who play dangerous sports. Why should they be
|>    allowed a free-ride at the expense of the couch potatoes?

Do you really believe that a couch potato is a good health risk?
How much intrusion of privacy are you proposing so that insurance
companies can classify people into thousands of different health 
risk levels?

|>    o - those who are so scared of death that they want a policy
|>    with almost unlimited benefits, and are prepared to pay for
|>    it. Should _everyone_ have unlimited benefits?

This is possible under the Canadian system and in any other country
that enjoys a national health care plan.  You get you basic coverage
taken care through the national plan, and then you can buy any 
additional frills and benefits from private insurers as has been
explained once and again by Canadians.
 
|>    o - those who currently live in the US, but intend to retire
|>    somewhere else. Will they have to fly half way round the world
|>    to get the medical treatment they paid for in their youth, or
|>    will they have to pay twice?

Again, as you probably have read by now, national health plans, such
as Canada's, often cover treatment in other countries.  On the other 
hand, you may retire to a country where they have a national health 
care system that may cover you.  In any case, if the Canadian system
can cover Canadians in Florida and Arizona, we sure could devise an
American health care system that would cover you in Katmandu.

|> 
|> Tony Cox, Stanford, CA
-- 
+-----------------------------------+------------------------------+
|     Rene J. Valdes                |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com       |
+-----------------------------------+------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine