On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:38:06 +0100, Dusty Furtile Morrocan
wrote:
>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.
Not surprising since you don't comprehend anything. Comprehend this? |