-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:37:42PM -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:
At 09:07 PM 10/22/2000 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:
OK, granted, the government needs to be kept on a tight leash. Most people will not want the government breaking into their homes. However, I think most people would be willing to vote for a bill that would guarantee insurance for people with genetic abnormalities, even that does mean that some CEOs and stockholders will have less money in their already-full pockets.
You cannot provide cheap insurance by punishing insurers, any more than you can provide cheap housing by punishing landlords. It has been tried. A law compelling insurance companies to insure the unhealthy will merely raise costs for the healthy, resulting in more people going uninsured.
If you want to guarantee insurance for the unhealthy without ill effects the TAXPAYER has to pay, and I suspect that if this proposition was put to the public, enthusiasm would be considerably less. Indeed the Clintons did put something very like that proposition to the public, and there was little enthusiasm.
Having socialized healthcare would be ideal. However, I think that
You obviously know nothing about socialism or medicine. Go learn. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University