"Free" health care for Americans?

John Edwards Will Give You Free Health

Published March 28, 2007


"The word among professional Democrats is that John Edwards has set
the stakes on the matter of health care, and no one who wants to be
president can offer less than he is offering, which is -- of course --
guaranteed health. That is to say, guaranteed free health care.

Mr. Edwards' primary complaint is that 47 million Americans do not
have health insurance. In a free society, one scans this datum in
search of its component parts.

If health insurance were without cost, one assumes that everyone would
have health insurance. A corollary of this is that everyone, in a
society of allegedly free health care, would actually be paying the
collective costs of health care. The political challenge lies in
disguising the cost.

When a commodity is quantifiably measurable, yet universally
available, like air, one can talk about its being "free." Only people
in submarines need to measure air, and to pay the cost of supplying
it. Health care, unlike air, can't be free, because doctors and nurses
and drugs are not in infinite supply. So can we generate what amounts
to a public subsidy by reducing the costs of health care?

To look that problem in the face, we search out relevant figures. One
set of these reveals that the cost of health care for an American is
twice what it is for a Western European. If in Germany it costs $100
per day per patient at a hospital, while a comparable hospital stay in
the United States costs $200, one reaches for an explanation. Is it
that American health care is twice as expensive because it is twice as
comprehensive, twice as resourceful? Or is it simply that, for other
reasons, doctors and nurses and drugs cost twice as much in the United
States?

In any case, how do we go about reducing these costs? Either you pass
a law that doctors and nurses and drug companies have to slash the
cost of their services and products by one-half -- a proposal nowhere
hinted at by Mr. Edwards -- or else we need to reduce the number of
people entitled to receive that health service. How do you do that?

Not by going in the direction proposed by Candidate Edwards, but by
going in the opposite direction. His proposal is that more people
should be covered. But if more people are insured, they will increase
their consumption of health care, and therefore increase the total
U.S. expenditure on health care.

But John Edwards calls for something different -- a fiscal frumpery by
which the cost of health care is somehow dissipated. This is done by
obscuring the agent by which health care is provided. It has
frequently been noticed by social philosophers that from about 1943,
when income taxes were first collected so to speak at the source, via
withholding, the average worker does not think of himself as being
taxed -- because the instrument by which the money is taken is so
automatic as to be more or less invisible. When an American worker is
hired at $700 per week, he reckons his income not at $700, but at
$500, which is the size of his paycheck.

Mr. Edwards speaks grandly about health coverage for 47 million people
who do not now have it. But unless there is a diminution in the cost
of health services, they will be paid for by somebody. If it is so
that the 47 million without insurance are the identical 47 million who
are the nation's poorest, then it might be said that all we are really
engaging in is more redistribution. There is a case to be made for
this, and indeed, redistribution has been accepted for years. The
wealthiest 5 percent of Americans pay 54 percent of all taxes, which
means they are paying taxes that would otherwise be paid by the 95
percent of Americans whose tax rates are lower.

Therefore, Mr. Edwards is doing nothing more than to call for
increased taxes on the wealthy. They used to call that socialized
medicine, when it was instituted by Great Britain after the war. It
crossed the Atlantic into Canada, which is a tidy country in which to
get sick, provided you can afford to travel across the border to an
American doctor".

"Pajamas O'Donovan" wrote in message news:
...
snip

To buy music is always the best way to support your idols.
Now that a lot of auido.

By Josh Hixson, Staff Writer
Star Community Newspapers
Friday, March 23, 2007

A Plano resident allegedly sent his male monkey a sexually explicit
audio tape while the animal was in custody at the Living Materials
Center (LMC), according to LMC staff.

Darwin, a Rhesus Macaque Monkey, was confiscated by animal services on
Feb. 21 after police found illegal animals in owner Bobby Denton
Crawford Jr.'s home.

Darwin was released back to Crawford Friday afternoon after being
transported from the LMC, where the monkey stayed the past month.

Sherry Smith, a spokesperson for Plano Animal Services, said Darwin
was given back to Crawford because he agreed to move out of the city.

"Where he is going to be moving, they don't prohibit them there,"
Smith said. "He is complying with city ordinances by removing Darwin
from the city."

Smith declined to comment on where Crawford had moved to.

Crawford made at least three visits to the LMC and a handful of tear-
filled phone calls requesting Darwin be returned to his custody,
according to Jim Dunlap, curator at the LMC.

On one such visit, Dunlap said Crawford handed him a box of Darwin's
toys. Among those toys was an audio tape player with a recorded
message from Crawford addressed to Darwin that was of a sexual nature,
Dunlap said.

After listening to the tape, Dunlap said Crawford made references to
Darwin and himself engaging in mutual stimulation.

Four animal services officers spent more than an hour Friday trying to
coax Darwin into an animal carrier before finally tranquilizing the
monkey.

"(Darwin) is very dangerous," said Amy Early, one of the Plano Animal
Services Officers who transported Darwin. "(Rhesus Macaque Monkeys)
will go straight for your face and tear into you. They have the
strength of six men and inch-and-a-half incisors."

Crawford showed Dunlap the scars Darwin gave him when he first started
making unannounced visits to the LMC two days after the monkey was
confiscated, Dunlap said.

LMC staff were instructed to call the police when Crawford made his
subsequent visits, Dunlap said.

The decision to return Darwin was not due to public pressure generated
by media attention, Smith said.

Dunlap said he received hate mail, threatening e-mails and angry
telephone calls from people who said Crawford should be allowed to
keep the monkey.

The hazards of keeping a wild animal as a pet are two-fold, according
to Dunlap.

"If you buy a wild animal, you are creating two problems," Dunlap
said. "One, it is a wild animal and two, you are making them unafraid
of people."

Dunlap explained why confiscated animals are brought to the LMC.

"This type of operation happens very frequently here at the Living
Materials Center," Dunlap said. "We have a number of animals that I am
holding for Plano Animal Services and Texas Parks and Wildlife. Most
of the animal control offices are set up for dogs and cats. If they
confiscate an illegal python, they have no place to put it. For 30
years I have been saying yes. So, here they come. "

Crawford was charged with two class C misdemeanors in connection with
possession of Darwin and other animals, including: six adult Piranha,
an American alligator and a Chilean rose-haired tarantula, according
to police. Both citations carry a fine of up to $500.

Crawford told police on Feb. 7 - while police were conducting an
investigation into a hit-and-run accident Crawford had allegedly been
involved in - he had raised Darwin for eight years.

PJ O'Donovan wrote:

John Edwards Will Give You Free Health

Published March 28, 2007

"The word among professional Democrats is that John Edwards has set
the stakes on the matter of health care, and no one who wants to be
president can offer less than he is offering, which is -- of course --
guaranteed health. That is to say, guaranteed free health care.


Maybe the Democrats are offering a world with less stress and less
*need* for health care, consequently they can *afford* it.

Anyhoo, now that the Democrats have decided to pull out Iraq, the money
saved (assuming it ever existed, but that's another story) is easily
enough to fund free health for the US, maybe the entire planet.

Mr. Edwards' primary complaint is that 47 million Americans do not
have health insurance. In a free society, one scans this datum in
search of its component parts.

If health insurance were without cost, one assumes that everyone would
have health insurance. A corollary of this is that everyone, in a
society of allegedly free health care, would actually be paying the
collective costs of health care. The political challenge lies in
disguising the cost.

When a commodity is quantifiably measurable, yet universally
available, like air, one can talk about its being "free." Only people
in submarines need to measure air, and to pay the cost of supplying
it. Health care, unlike air, can't be free, because doctors and nurses
and drugs are not in infinite supply. So can we generate what amounts
to a public subsidy by reducing the costs of health care?

To look that problem in the face, we search out relevant figures. One
set of these reveals that the cost of health care for an American is
twice what it is for a Western European. If in Germany it costs $100
per day per patient at a hospital, while a comparable hospital stay in
the United States costs $200, one reaches for an explanation. Is it
that American health care is twice as expensive because it is twice as
comprehensive, twice as resourceful? Or is it simply that, for other
reasons, doctors and nurses and drugs cost twice as much in the United
States?

In any case, how do we go about reducing these costs? Either you pass
a law that doctors and nurses and drug companies have to slash the
cost of their services and products by one-half -- a proposal nowhere
hinted at by Mr. Edwards -- or else we need to reduce the number of
people entitled to receive that health service. How do you do that?

Not by going in the direction proposed by Candidate Edwards, but by
going in the opposite direction. His proposal is that more people
should be covered. But if more people are insured, they will increase
their consumption of health care, and therefore increase the total
U.S. expenditure on health care.

But John Edwards calls for something different -- a fiscal frumpery by
which the cost of health care is somehow dissipated. This is done by
obscuring the agent by which health care is provided. It has
frequently been noticed by social philosophers that from about 1943,
when income taxes were first collected so to speak at the source, via
withholding, the average worker does not think of himself as being
taxed -- because the instrument by which the money is taken is so
automatic as to be more or less invisible. When an American worker is
hired at $700 per week, he reckons his income not at $700, but at
$500, which is the size of his paycheck.

Mr. Edwards speaks grandly about health coverage for 47 million people
who do not now have it. But unless there is a diminution in the cost
of health services, they will be paid for by somebody. If it is so
that the 47 million without insurance are the identical 47 million who
are the nation's poorest, then it might be said that all we are really
engaging in is more redistribution. There is a case to be made for
this, and indeed, redistribution has been accepted for years. The
wealthiest 5 percent of Americans pay 54 percent of all taxes, which
means they are paying taxes that would otherwise be paid by the 95
percent of Americans whose tax rates are lower.

Therefore, Mr. Edwards is doing nothing more than to call for
increased taxes on the wealthy. They used to call that socialized
medicine, when it was instituted by Great Britain after the war. It
crossed the Atlantic into Canada, which is a tidy country in which to
get sick, provided you can afford to travel across the border to an
American doctor".

On 29 Mar, 11:40, "PJ O'Donovan" wrote:
John Edwards Will Give You Free Health

A lot of crap like this has been appearing in n.g.'s recently. I can
only summise that these idiots get it from some 'talking points'
briefing. Any ideas where?


Published March 28, 2007

Where?


"The word among professional Democrats is that John Edwards has set
the stakes on the matter of health care, and no one who wants to be
president can offer less than he is offering, which is -- of course --
guaranteed health. That is to say, guaranteed free health care.

Which means that he is advocating a National insurance scheme....which
is a very sensible policy....America can then join the rest of the
developed world...


Mr. Edwards' primary complaint is that 47 million Americans do not
have health insurance. In a free society, one scans this datum in
search of its component parts.

I have no idea what this last statement means.


If health insurance were without cost,

Which it isn't, which is why it's called 'insurance'.

one assumes that everyone would
have health insurance.

Most people do in Europe and Canada etc.


A corollary of this is that everyone, in a
society of allegedly free health care, would actually be paying the
collective costs of health care.

By George! He's got it! (The same way that everyone pays for police,
education etc. etc.)

The political challenge lies in
disguising the cost.

Disguising it? Why do you have to disguise it?There is a deduction
from my salary, and I know why it's there. It goes towards my medical
expenses, my state pension, and any other social benefit I may become
entitled to. When I don't need it, someone else gets the benefit, so
to speak.

When a commodity is quantifiably measurable, yet universally
available, like air, one can talk about its being "free." Only people
in submarines need to measure air, and to pay the cost of supplying
it. Health care, unlike air, can't be free, because doctors and nurses
and drugs are not in infinite supply.

Nor is demand for their services.

So can we generate what amounts
to a public subsidy by reducing the costs of health care?

To look that problem in the face, we search out relevant figures. One
set of these reveals that the cost of health care for an American is
twice what it is for a Western European. If in Germany it costs $100
per day per patient at a hospital, while a comparable hospital stay in
the United States costs $200, one reaches for an explanation. Is it
that American health care is twice as expensive because it is twice as
comprehensive, twice as resourceful? Or is it simply that, for other
reasons, doctors and nurses and drugs cost twice as much in the United
States?

It's because your system is crap....too much bureacracy, duplication,
administration, waste etc. etc. That's what you get with a commercial
health system.

In any case, how do we go about reducing these costs? Either you pass
a law that doctors and nurses and drug companies have to slash the
cost of their services and products by one-half -- a proposal nowhere
hinted at by Mr. Edwards -- or else we need to reduce the number of
people entitled to receive that health service.

Or you reform the system and introduce a national insurance scheme.


How do you do that?

Not by going in the direction proposed by Candidate Edwards, but by
going in the opposite direction. His proposal is that more people
should be covered. But if more people are insured, they will increase
their consumption of health care, and therefore increase the total
U.S. expenditure on health care.

Do you really believe that illness or disease (perhaps even vehicle
smashes or heart attacks) conforms to the law of supply and demand?


But John Edwards calls for something different -- a fiscal frumpery by
which the cost of health care is somehow dissipated.

The word is diluted. The way that insurance risk is diluted by
underwriters.


This is done by
obscuring the agent by which health care is provided. It has
frequently been noticed by social philosophers that from about 1943,
when income taxes were first collected so to speak at the source, via
withholding, the average worker does not think of himself as being
taxed -- because the instrument by which the money is taken is so
automatic as to be more or less invisible. When an American worker is
hired at $700 per week, he reckons his income not at $700, but at
$500, which is the size of his paycheck.

And no-one checks his tax? Pull the other one!


Mr. Edwards speaks grandly about health coverage for 47 million people
who do not now have it. But unless there is a diminution in the cost
of health services, they will be paid for by somebody.

Those insured, presumably.


If it is so
that the 47 million without insurance are the identical 47 million who
are the nation's poorest, then it might be said that all we are really
engaging in is more redistribution.

Well, no. In Britain it's a flat rate. The difference is that, because
of the size of a national scheme, individual contributions are more
affordable than the cheapest private schemes.

There is a case to be made for
this, and indeed, redistribution has been accepted for years. The
wealthiest 5 percent of Americans pay 54 percent of all taxes,

That is disengenuous. What is that in the proportion of their income
compared to poorer people?


which
means they are paying taxes that would otherwise be paid by the 95
percent of Americans whose tax rates are lower.

You think so?


Therefore, Mr. Edwards is doing nothing more than to call for
increased taxes on the wealthy.

No he isn't. He's advocating a National Insurance scheme.

They used to call that socialized
medicine, when it was instituted by Great Britain after the war.

And the British people still vote for it, don't they?


It
crossed the Atlantic into Canada, which is a tidy country in which to
get sick, provided you can afford to travel across the border to an
American doctor".

I rather think that the traffic is the other way....

Please stop posting this sh*t.......

Dr. Barry Worthington

Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
On 29 Mar, 11:40, "PJ O'Donovan" wrote:
John Edwards Will Give You Free Health

More accurate to describe it as "free at the point of delivery"


one assumes that everyone would
have health insurance.

Most people do in Europe and Canada etc.

Certainly not "most" in the UK

The political challenge lies in
disguising the cost.

Disguising it? Why do you have to disguise it?There is a deduction
from my salary, and I know why it's there. It goes towards my medical
expenses, my state pension, and any other social benefit I may become
entitled to. When I don't need it, someone else gets the benefit, so
to speak.
That's what social responsibility is all about.

Therefore, Mr. Edwards is doing nothing more than to call for
increased taxes on the wealthy.

No he isn't. He's advocating a National Insurance scheme.

They used to call that socialized
medicine, when it was instituted by Great Britain after the war.

And the British people still vote for it, don't they?

Indeed we do! With all its' many faults, we Brits appreciate having
access to the best available health care regardless of financial means.

p j o'donovan sez:

""The word among professional Democrats is that John Edwards has set
the stakes on the matter of health care, and no one who wants to be
president can offer less than he is offering, which is -- of course --
guaranteed health. That is to say, guaranteed free health care..."
_________________________________
How much do you want to bet that his plan provides for back-billing?

On 29 Mar, 18:39, "Docky Wocky" wrote:
p j o'donovan sez:

""The word among professional Democrats is that John Edwards has set
the stakes on the matter of health care, and no one who wants to be
president can offer less than he is offering, which is -- of course --
guaranteed health. That is to say, guaranteed free health care..."
_________________________________
How much do you want to bet that his plan provides for back-billing?

As I understand it, he's advocating a National Insurance Scheme. No-
one gets billed. Please don't assume things about something that you
clearly don't understand.

Dr. Barry Worthington