Group: seattle.politics
From: usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
Date: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:02 AM
Subject: Re: Nanny Says ...

Lobby Dosser < @ > wrote:

> usenet@ (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > Lobby Dosser < @ > wrote:
> >
> >> usenet@ (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >>
> >> > Larry in AZ wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Waiving the right to remain silent, Lobby Dosser
> >> >> < @ > said:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Does it? Does Edward's plan include letting those Not in the
> >> >> > system die in the street? If it does not, then Everyone is 'in
> >> >> > the system'. Just like now.
> >> >>
> >> >> In the first place, Edwards proposing to "fix" the healthcare
> >> >> system is a bit of a joke. He's largely responsible for driving
> >> >> OB-GYNs out of North Carolina.
> >> >>
> >> >> He made his millions suing the careers away from them and
> >> >> pre-natal care physicians. Thousands of women can thank Edwards
> >> >> for their having to drive hundreds of miles to find a doctor
> >> >> willing to see them.
> >> >
> >> > You just said you thought his idea (as explained by Bill) was
> >> > reasonable. Lobby casts FUD on it, and now you're compelled to hate
> >> > Edwards.
> >>
> >> I asked a reasonable question, I did not cast FUD. You got an answer?
> >
> > You got one already, from Bill. But you didn't respond to him. Are you
> > really interested in an answer?
>
> Shatzer? I KFd him. Watching the slow motion degeneration of his mind was
> too painful.

Sez Shatzer:

>>Seems reasonable.

> Does it?

Entirely reasonable.

> Does Edward's plan include letting those Not in the system die
> in the street?

Probably not. But their co-payments would be increased proportionately.

> If it does not, then Everyone is 'in the system'. Just
> like now.

"The system" refers to the universal health insurance system, not the
health care system in its totality.

Folks who prefer to forego the benefits of the system would be free to
do so, though at the cost of absorbing a greater portion of the costs
out of their own pockets - up to and including bankruptcy.

But, I suspect few folks would make that choice.

The preventive care requirements for folks over 16 and less than 65
years of age would be pretty modest. In the absense of symptoms, every
five years is the current recommendation, I believe.

Peace and justice,



--
/cartoons/2007/