From: Scott Dorsey on
In article <0Vipm.155946$cf6.91848(a)newsfe16.iad>,
JoeSpareBedroom <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge(a)panix.com> wrote in message
>news:h83mq7$gmt$1(a)panix2.panix.com...
>> JoeSpareBedroom <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge(a)panix.com> wrote in message
>>>> JoeSpareBedroom <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>We already have at least one "socialist" health care system in this
>>>>>country.
>>>>>Do you think we should abolish it? You know which one I mean. You're an
>>>>>expert on socialism and health care.
>>>>
>>>> You mean the one where members of congress get free health care that is
>>>> paid for by the taxpayers? I'd be in favor of abolishing that one. Let
>>>> them have to deal with the insurance companies like the rest of America
>>>> and I'd bet you'd see a big change...
>>>
>>>Nope. That's not the one I was referring to.
>>
>> How about the one, then, where military members get free health care
>> provided by military clinic staff? That one is actually a big win because
>> it's important to keep a large military medical staff available in case
>> of war and it keeps them trained. Also, of course, it's in the military's
>> best interest to keep their soldiers leathy.
>
>Imagine that. A socialist health care arrangement which has a useful
>purpose, and it's right here in America.


Oh... I thought maybe you were talking about Medicaid....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Jeff Strickland on

"JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:Mljpm.156057$cf6.140612(a)newsfe16.iad...
>
> I never said Germany was a good example. There was no inference or implied
> meaning of any kind. I simply pointed out that their system is based on
> ".....universal coverage using private doctors, private hospitals and
> private insurance plans", and that the Hack's use of the work "government"
> was in error with regard to Germany.
>

And I'm telling you once again that Germany is a better example of Hachi's
position than your. Germany's system is failing. It cannot be sustained
under its current structure, and everybody has said so. Germany says it will
take YEARS -- perhaps stretching into a decade or more -- to adress the
problems and implement changes.

Germany is an example of how badly something gets screwed up when the
government takes over.



> Again: I made no qualitative claims about Germany's system. Read that
> again.
>
>
>
>
>> You have no idea what you say, or what you say really means to everybody
>> else.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> The factual misrepresentation was really factually correct. Sorry to
>>>> confuse you with facts, but that happens alot with you.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm focused on the Hack's use of the word "government" in his statement:
>>>
>>>
>>> "That there's a real good reason for not letting ANY government involved
>>> in healthcare. At all."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> He's right. There is a good reason for not letting government get
>> involved in health care. No ifs, ands, or buts.
>
>
> He mentioned "government" in connection with Germany, and THAT was his
> mistake. By using the word "government", he showed that he thought Germany
> had a government-run system.
>


YOU are the only one I've seen make mention of a specific government,
Germany. Whether or not you buy into the idea that Germans have a private
health care system, it has a system on the brink of collapse and it is
taking government intervention to prop it up.

You ought to do a Google search on GERMANY'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM and then
check the top few hits. The system is in serious trouble. But thanks for
playing.






From: JoeSpareBedroom on
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h85omo$fn2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:Mljpm.156057$cf6.140612(a)newsfe16.iad...
>>
>> I never said Germany was a good example. There was no inference or
>> implied meaning of any kind. I simply pointed out that their system is
>> based on ".....universal coverage using private doctors, private
>> hospitals and private insurance plans", and that the Hack's use of the
>> work "government" was in error with regard to Germany.
>>
>
> And I'm telling you once again that Germany is a better example of Hachi's
> position than your. Germany's system is failing. It cannot be sustained
> under its current structure, and everybody has said so. Germany says it
> will take YEARS -- perhaps stretching into a decade or more -- to adress
> the problems and implement changes.
>
> Germany is an example of how badly something gets screwed up when the
> government takes over.


Did the problems begin BEFORE government stepped in to "help"?


From: Jeff Strickland on

"JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:vHtpm.413117$Ta5.371680(a)newsfe15.iad...
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:h85omo$fn2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>> news:Mljpm.156057$cf6.140612(a)newsfe16.iad...
>>>
>>> I never said Germany was a good example. There was no inference or
>>> implied meaning of any kind. I simply pointed out that their system is
>>> based on ".....universal coverage using private doctors, private
>>> hospitals and private insurance plans", and that the Hack's use of the
>>> work "government" was in error with regard to Germany.
>>>
>>
>> And I'm telling you once again that Germany is a better example of
>> Hachi's position than your. Germany's system is failing. It cannot be
>> sustained under its current structure, and everybody has said so. Germany
>> says it will take YEARS -- perhaps stretching into a decade or more -- to
>> adress the problems and implement changes.
>>
>> Germany is an example of how badly something gets screwed up when the
>> government takes over.
>
>
> Did the problems begin BEFORE government stepped in to "help"?
>

It's hard to tell, but my sense is no. Why don't you study the issue and get
back to us.

The fact is, Germany has a socialized medical system that is failing. It is
subsidized (at the least) by government money, and Germany itself says it
cannot sustain the system as it is currently structured.






From: JoeSpareBedroom on
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h85qmr$vmp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:vHtpm.413117$Ta5.371680(a)newsfe15.iad...
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:h85omo$fn2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Mljpm.156057$cf6.140612(a)newsfe16.iad...
>>>>
>>>> I never said Germany was a good example. There was no inference or
>>>> implied meaning of any kind. I simply pointed out that their system is
>>>> based on ".....universal coverage using private doctors, private
>>>> hospitals and private insurance plans", and that the Hack's use of the
>>>> work "government" was in error with regard to Germany.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And I'm telling you once again that Germany is a better example of
>>> Hachi's position than your. Germany's system is failing. It cannot be
>>> sustained under its current structure, and everybody has said so.
>>> Germany says it will take YEARS -- perhaps stretching into a decade or
>>> more -- to adress the problems and implement changes.
>>>
>>> Germany is an example of how badly something gets screwed up when the
>>> government takes over.
>>
>>
>> Did the problems begin BEFORE government stepped in to "help"?
>>
>
> It's hard to tell, but my sense is no. Why don't you study the issue and
> get back to us.


I have the same sense: The trouble began before the government stepped in.
In other words, I'm agreeing with you.

Now, how can their system have been screwed up by government, if the
problems began BEFORE the government stepped in? Sounds like someone's time
line is tied in knots.


> The fact is, Germany has a socialized medical system that is failing. It
> is subsidized (at the least) by government money, and Germany itself says
> it cannot sustain the system as it is currently structured.


We can't sustain OUR system either, as it is currently structured, and for
most of us, there is no government involvement.

If you had to buy your own policy with no contribution from your employer or
any other source, what would that cost you? I mean YOU, in California.