On the particular moment of Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:44:59 GMT in relation
to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy,
john_kulp@... (John Kulp) put forth:
>On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:24:09 +0100, Tim C.
>wrote:
>> I don't know. What do you propose for the US?
>
>I have already posted that in response to DFM's question and you can
>go find it if you want.
Here it is:
"Fair enough question, but I'm not claiming I have some great
universal model for all. There are far too many different
circumstances to have
that the case. My model is guaranteed universal coverage where when
instances like Hirst's arise, the patient has the option to fund what
is not covered through whatever means they can, from their own
resources to charity. Decisions on what should be covered should be
governed by what is generally accepted among developed countries. On
this basis, she would have been fully covered with none of her
resources being used beyond her taxes, because the drug in question is
routinely accepted and used in the US, Canada and other European
countries. The UK was the odd man out here. Beyond that, countries
can and do decide how to provide the coverage. If Europeans want it
government provided, fine. If they want it government mandated and
privately provided, fine. That's up to each populace. Then we should
all get together and collectively bargain for drugs, supplies and the
like to get the most bargaining power. However, since Europe is
routinely being subsidized at our expense, I hardly think they would
agree to that unless forced by a change in US law. Loonies here will
shout about the cost, but since it has been projected at less than the
Iraq war is costing annually, I don't think it is a difficult choice
to trade that for universal coverage. They will also carry on about
any government involvement at all, completely ignoring that the VA is
the most cost effective and highest quality healthcare system in the
US and is completely government provided. Now I know having said
that, that someone will jump on that and say that that proves that a
government provided healthcare system is best. It's not. Not here.
In spite of its achievements, the VA was, for a long time, horrible
and only got its act together in the last few years. It does fine
with vets, but trying to manage a much much larger constituency is
another question altogether. "
To be frank, I can't really a great benefit in what you are proposing
vs what's common in Europe.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
-- |