Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: <None>
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:40:02 EST
 <1992Sep8.182402.27238@oracle.us.oracle.com> <ck9pbycp@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Government is not the solution

In article <ck9pbycp@csv.warwick.ac.uk>, csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.182402.27238@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
...
>>So, in other words, the sole measure of "The health care situation for
>>the population as a whole" is the number of people with health
>>insurance?  Does that mean that the US "health care situation for the
>>population as a whole"  will improve if we get the super rich to buy
>>themselves healthcare?  Doesn't the quality of the health care
>>available matter?  Shouldn't Canada lose some points because of their
>>waiting lists and because they have to export many urgent cases south
>>of the border?  Try again.
>>
> 
> Well, I'm not going to say any more about Harel's stuff, because he's
> posted his source. Look it up if you're interested. Your remark about the

	I did, his source is mainly concerned with showing how evil the US is
because the government doesn't run everything.  Ask H*r*l about the other two
columns he deletes from that table and why the US is ranked 2nd to last.
	It's not because the people pay for their health insurance, but because
the government doesn't.

> super-rich is rather sad: how many of the 35 million Americans with no health
> cover are super-rich? And no, the quality of health care available does not
> matter *if it is not available to you*! Just because *you* are OK doesn't mean
> you have the best system. I said in an earlier post that no system is perfect,
> but that the national schemes at least have the basic humanity to provide
> cover for everyone. Unfortunately, your posts reveal you to be just another of
> those "fuck you, jack, I'm alright" products of the Reagan/Thatcher years...

	Ahh, and you are obviously a product of the "too stupid to make money
during the 80s" years :).

	I have no sympathy for those that only want to leech off the "rich",
mainly because the government considers me to be in that category.  I'll gladly
help people trying to get an education or training, but not people whos only
concern is how to get on lifetime disability, or get the union to protect their
job while they live their life as an acoholic.

	It's not government's role to provide health care.

	Whine all you want, but a majority of people in the US feel that way. 
Sure they want better health care, we all do.  But we aren't so foolish to
believe that the people who brought us the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, the House of
Reps bank and an ever-increasing bureaucracy can give us efficient, cost
effective health care.

> you because they don't affect you. If you were one of the 35 million, and they
> did affect you, you'd soon change your tune. Morality isn't the refuge of the

	Heck no, I'd look for a job that provided decent health care.

...
> All your glorious MRI scanners and single rooms with TV, sauna & jacuzzi
> and personal casino don't count for anything alongside the worst peri-natal

	Envious?  Get a clue, the average hospital has about half a dozen
"luxury" rooms.  Everything else is a double.  Sure you can pay *if you want*
for single occupancy.  But that's the beauty of America.  Freedom of choice. 
We don't expect descendents of loyalists to understand, though.  Perhaps the
Queen mum could give up some of her "greedy, screw you" wealth and provide real
"free" health care for Britains/Canadians/etc, eh?

> and infant mortality rates in the developed world, or the hideous discrepancy

	As soon as we get a government that realizes the *illegality* of drugs
is the problem, and not that we haven't put 100% of our young people in jail,
things will get better.  Schools that educate instead of indoctrinate would
help too.  As would parents who gave a damn about themselves and their kids.
	But don't worry.  The UK/Canada will soon experience the wonders of the
incredible growing government as soon as they turn to socialism to cure their
"ills".

> between those who have and those who don't. Of course, if you're into
> social Darwinism, then you'll be delighted by the discrepancies. The only

	Social Darwinism comments only on the results, and not on any
particular political theory.  You might as well try to label someone as being
into "the theory of supply and demand".

> trouble with that philosophy is that when all the poor people have died out,
> there'll be no-one to do the jobs that, finally, keep the society from
> drowning in its own excrement. Happy drowning, Michael.

	There will be the people who tried to cheat their way through school
and life.  There's always someone who thinks that there will be a parent-figure
to pay their way through life.
	They get over it at about the same time their unemployment runs out.

> The Wisp. [very grateful I'm not an American...]

	As are we.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!