"rwwff" wrote in message
news:pan.2005.11.26.19.57.37.360191@cox.net...
> Why is this in rec.bicycles.misc??
>
And in alt.toys.gi-joe? - somebody please quit crossposting! (LOL, realizing
that I am now crossposting as well!)
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:08:23 +0000, tr2267 wrote:
> > In article <11nvgcv53k6jn56@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Vic Vega wrote:
> >>So don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, you whiny
bitch.
> >>
> > I have group health insurance, idiot. But 80 million Americans do not
have
> > group insurance, and they're screwed by a shitty health care system that
> > is fundamentally flawed. Thanks for providing evidence that
archconservative
> > nutjobs are so self-centered and selfish freaks that someone caring
about their
> > fellow citizens is completely beyond their comprehension.
>
> Yeah, blame it on the "archconservatives", sure. If the left had really
> wanted a health system reform, they could have chosen to spend their
> majority in 92-94 on that instead of going out of their way to irritate
> bubba-democrats by going after their guns. No, putting a temporary ban
> on the manufacture of a few lame jam-o-matics was more important than
> getting a national health insurance plan in place.
>
> Now, I'll tell you why.
>
> If you restrict the amount of money going into national health care, you
> have to restrict the expenses faced by doctors, hospitals, and medical
> supply makers. Can you cut pay to nurses, orderlies, secretaries, techs,
> etc? Nope, those folks are in the core democratic wage class. Can you
> cut availability of MRI's, tests, etc? No, patients will go
> beserk. Can you cut their real estate rents and utility bills? Not
> really. Can you cut their insurance costs.. hmmmm... maybe. But
> wait, guess who is the recipients of that largess?? Trial lawyers,
> a(the?) core democrat supplier of campaign funds. So democrats ended up
> having to choose between embracing single payer with US style costs, and
> the tax increases that would be required to pay those costs, or screwing
> their trial lawyer supporters by capping payouts from insurance pools for
> malpractice and other liabilities in order to achieve acceptable expense
> levels that wouldn't result in a tax payer revolt.
>
> Sooner or later, the Democrats will control Legislature and Executive
> again, and their taste for actually achieving universal health care will
> once again... disappear.
>
> > it is only
> > a matter of time before the US catches up to the rest of the
> > industrialized world.
>
> The day our lawyers will agree to accept the same degree of payout as our
> Northern and European competitors, maybe. Until then? Can't happen.
>
> I actually hope I'm wrong...
>
>
|