From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:39:13 GMT

In article <21506@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <18qf74INNsmo@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>>This week's "In These Times", a left-wing magazine, starts off with yet
>>another anecdote about a working poor person whose sick daughter could
>>not see a doctor for her earache (no medical insurance at Mom's
>>low-wage job) until it was bad enough to have to go to the ER. By then
>>strep had turned into rheumatic fever, result: permanent heart damage.
>>We already have rationing of health care in the US: we ration by price.
>
>If you insist on reading left-wing propaganda, you will continue to
>have problems understanding the free market.
>
>There was an anecdote in a magazine I'm thinking about starting.  It
>explained how we already ration sports cars.  You see, we ration then
>by price.
>
>If you want the nicer things in life, you have to work VERY HARD.  I
>busted my ass getting where I am today, and I resent people like you
>who want to take the fruits of MY labors and give them to people who
>don't.


This sort of nonsense is dangerous (from both posts).  The sob-story
about the kid who couldn't get medical attention is a particular
case, not necessarily the real story.  Maybe Mom could have afforded
some form of insurance but she decided to spend it on booze or other
drugs.  The line about "if you work hard, you get somewhere" is 
a generalization; it neglects particular cases.  Someone may work
really hard at some form of physical labour but not earn as much
money as someone who works really hard in pork bellies.

Remember also that each country has a natural rate of unemployment;
if it rises or falls beyond that level through artificial controls,
disruptions and imbalances occur.  Total employment is an 
impossible dream.  Each nation must therefore pay those people who
can't get work because not everyone can be a doctor, lawyer, computer
programmer, etc.  There is not enough demand.  Such people must be
paid to shut-up and not ask for work.  It's a relatively inexpensive
way of preventing riots and revolutions.

Insofar as this touches health care, a system must be contrived 
which eliminates sob-stories (thus depriving the left of their
favourite ammunition) yet won't bankrupt the country.  As a 
Canadian (a disgruntled Canadian, I might add), I'm glad for the
public health system here.  It's badly administered, but it did
save my life (I had viral encephalitis and absolutely no money).

I favour a health system where the federal government would 
guarantee emergency health insurance to those people who have
absolutely no means of paying their hospital bills.  Such a
plan would see that the sick were treated, and the method of
payment be settled afterwards.  In all cases, guidelines 
would dictate what exactly would constitute abuse of public
generosity.

Canada's national health system is in jeopardy because the 
architects of it did not have the foresight to prevent abuses.
The "universal health care" system, so touted by Canada's out-of-
touch socialist leaders (even the Conservatives are commies), means
that a person can put such stupid things as a speck of dust in an
eye or a bee-sting or a self-induced nicotine addiction on the
public's back.  This is no good and Clinton should be made aware
of the dangers.


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca

Xref: sparky tx.politics:5264 alt.politics.clinton:5551