Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] The future of eldercare in the US

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: DSanner106 AT aol.com
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] The future of eldercare in the US
  • Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:52:02 EDT

That is true, as far as it goes, the taxes you pay make up the difference
in Canada though. You know it
all gets paid for one way or another. You do cut out some of the profit
mongers on the private side, insurance companies etc. but you create and fund
a huge bureaucracy to manage your new system that is just as expensive if
not more so. Canada collects taxes at a higher rate than in the US, even
without the huge military spending we have in the US. We spend more on
defense
the the rest of the world combined, remove that and canadians are taxed
nearly double what we are on everything else. There is no such thing as a
free ride, If you like a socialist system where the govt. controls and
doles,
that is fine. If you want the freedom to distribute your dollars as you
like and choose levels of coverage and doctors, you should be able to. That
is
the primary difference. If you really trust politicians more than
businessmen, then go with socialism. I trust neither and want to maintain as
much
control as I can.

Drew


In a message dated 8/14/2009 10:55:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Clansgian AT wmconnect.com writes:



> >What am I missing here?
> >Why would anyone keep their insurance if there is a free program that
> will insure me?

You are not missing anything. Just because Obama's version of 'health
care' stinks to high Heaven, it doesn't mean that it isn't addressing a
real
problem.

I'd answer your question this way: The medical industry now of days is a
monopoly in which only guild memebers are allowed to participate.

Do you realize that as recently as the 1940's you typically became a
doctor
by apprenticing to a doctor and then hanging out your shingle. This
varied
widely from state to state. Doctors made more money than most people, but
not a lot more.

The monopoly is the function of the AMA. Oh, I know that scarcely 1/3 of
practicing doctors are actually members of the AMA, but that doesn't
matter.
Beginning in the late 1800's the AMA basically made a pact with the
American people saying that the quacks and snake oil salesmen running
around were
dangerous. Put us in charge as a benign dictator and we will promise that
we will keep medicine safe and accessible. They have not kept their
bargain.
It doesn't matter that most doctors are not AMA memebers, the AMA is a
guild whose main function is to keep the cost of medicine artificially
high
to keep the incomes of medical personnel artificially high.

In 1948 there was a proposal for universal insurance coverage for the US
,,, this just about the same time as in Canada whose first province
debated
universal coverage in 1946. Unversal coverage was adopted in Canada but
in
the US the AMA lobbied mightily against it .... almost all pontificators
of
medical history freely admit that the most important impetus for opposing
it
was that the AMA feared it would limit doctors' incomes.

The gist of my point is this: We spend 17% of our GDP on 'health care'
and
between Bev and her husband's empoyer, it takes $1200 a month to provide
coverage for them. There is no reason for this. There is no reason that
'health care' should cost 17% of every dollar made in the US except to
keep one
segment of the population with an artificially higher income.

The AMA as it presently operates, is willing to allow a percent of the
population to suffer and die so it can scare the rest into coughing up
(pun
intended) an inordiante amount of their income to make the memebers of the
medical monoply wealthy.

That is why it is the AMA and insurance companies that so fear a
"government option". Indeed, Bev, if a government option were available,
why would
you want to keep paying $600 a month and do without the other $600 a month
Ron's employer would be able to offer him as salary if it weren't spending
it
on medical coverage?? The point is, if there is any real competition to
the
Guild, it would collapse. People could afford most medical services out
of
pocket and insurance for the really expensive things would be dirt cheap.

Remeber our Canadian member on here who a few days ago said it was $110
(Canadian) to cover a family of four in BC. That's right at $100 US
right
now, $25 dollars a month per person. That probably reflects the actual
cost
of providing medical services minus the tribute we pay here to the medical

plutocracy.

James
_______________________________________________
Homestead list and subscription:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
Change your homestead list member options:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/dsanner106%40aol.com
View the archives at:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page