From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:39:53 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep9.164233.12599@eng.ufl.edu> jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
>>>I fail to see how the restructure of health care (12% of GNP) within 100
>>>days could be in any way helpful for the American economy.  If you can
>>>not see DEPRESSION labeled on his plan, you must be near sighted!
>
>>Please clarify.  It's not as if 12% of the GNP would suddenly vanish
>
>More or less.  Does he not want to do away with existing health insurance 
>companies?  Inaddition he will totally reshape the existing health care
>system.  Do you not see how even a slight manipulation of something so
>huge can reprocussions throughout the world?  These reprocussions will
>not be positive!  It will have a negative effect!

It's almost as if you believe that, with Clinton in the White House,
doctors will suddenly stop practicing, causing 1/8 of our economy
to vanish on Inauguration Day.  Wow.  That would be a feat.

I believe that other people have posted the amount of our medical
bills that are devoted to such non-medical things as filing insurance
claims.  Clearly, our money can be better spent.

>
>Further do you think it is fair to have 75% income taxes.  Do you think
>that will increase incentive for people to work?  Do you realize we have
>the most efficient health care system in the world.  If someone wants
>to see a doctor -- they can.  People from Canada and Europe come over here
>for superior health care, not to mention availability.

Who said ANYTHING about 75% income taxes?  Republicans, I suppose, in
an effort to demonize their opponents.  Taxes that high would out-do
Sweden.  Quite a trick, there.

One thing about our health care system.  It perhaps is true that we
excel at providing exotic, highly technical medicine, but we are
closer to the bottom among industrial nations in, say, infant mortality,
preventive care, and so on.  Preventing an illness before it gets
serious is generally cheaper, and our medical system tends not to
favor this approach to treating patients.  Doctors make more money
as specialists, treating the exotic.

>
>Let me leave you with one last thought:
>  When has the government ever done something efficient?
>
>  NEVER!!!!

It is true that a market is the most economically efficient way to do
things.  However, a market doesn't do everything, and this is where
government should be involved.  Would aspiring capitalists build
the US highway network?  Provide for our defense?  Fire departments,
police?  Some things are not done by the market that should be done
and I suppose that government can be both more or less efficient
than an empty set.

With the topic at hand, is health care a "normal" market?  I don't
think someone being wheeled into an emergency room is an informed
consumer, willing to judge if this procedure or that is more
advantageous, both medically and financially.



--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections