Homestead mailing list

[DSanner106 AT aol.com]

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