Comments on: Prognosis Negative…. http://www.gothamresistance.com/2009/02/08/prognosis-negative%e2%80%a6/ Gotham Resistance blog Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:59:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Pete http://www.gothamresistance.com/2009/02/08/prognosis-negative%e2%80%a6/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Pete Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:37:13 +0000 http://www.gothamresistance.com/?p=253#comment-8 Peter & Miles, Thanks for the input on “nationalized healthcare”. I fully realize that wealthy Brits, New Zealanders, and Canadians are free to pay for private care. I know this because some of you guys come here to do just that. The only thing that I have to go on is our first attempt at “universal healthcare” in the early 90’s under the leadership of then first lady Hillary Clinton, aptly nicknamed – HillaryCare. The Clinton plan actually would have made it illegal for doctors to accept direct cash payments from patients! It also limited and regulated the number of specialist allowed in any particular field. HillaryCare was our first and only serious attempt to achieve universal coverage, and it was a scarier than Hillary without makeup! Unless the present liberals in congress have wised up since then, I have no reason to believe that any new plan would be much different. Don’t you know we can’t have the inequity of “rich” people paying for premium care while the rest of the people have to suffer with no-frills coverage! PM Peter & Miles,

Thanks for the input on “nationalized healthcare”. I fully realize that wealthy Brits, New Zealanders, and Canadians are free to pay for private care. I know this because some of you guys come here to do just that.

The only thing that I have to go on is our first attempt at “universal healthcare” in the early 90’s under the leadership of then first lady Hillary Clinton, aptly nicknamed – HillaryCare.

The Clinton plan actually would have made it illegal for doctors to accept direct cash payments from patients! It also limited and regulated the number of specialist allowed in any particular field. HillaryCare was our first and only serious attempt to achieve universal coverage, and it was a scarier than Hillary without makeup!

Unless the present liberals in congress have wised up since then, I have no reason to believe that any new plan would be much different.

Don’t you know we can’t have the inequity of “rich” people paying for premium care while the rest of the people have to suffer with no-frills coverage!

PM

]]> By: miles gray http://www.gothamresistance.com/2009/02/08/prognosis-negative%e2%80%a6/comment-page-1/#comment-7 miles gray Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:05:51 +0000 http://www.gothamresistance.com/?p=253#comment-7 Well done Peter, thank you for setting our misguided American friend straight. I know its scary, Pete, but trust me government health care doesn't in any way restrict the rights of those who can afford it. Come on in, the waters warm. If anything the government encourages people to "go private" as it saves costs for those who can't. Also don't be so scared of the government bureaucracy, having experienced New Zealand based national healthcare bureaucracy and US based private insurance bureaucracy (whilst living in the states for 5 years). I can say I like neither of them very much, but partially prefer the government version - at least you don't get such an obvious feeling they are trying to actually make you well, rather than screw you of every last dime. (Perhaps because in the former case, the people that get really sick can never be pushed 'out of coverage' so there is less incentive?) Well done Peter, thank you for setting our misguided American friend straight. I know its scary, Pete, but trust me government health care doesn’t in any way restrict the rights of those who can afford it. Come on in, the waters warm.

If anything the government encourages people to “go private” as it saves costs for those who can’t. Also don’t be so scared of the government bureaucracy, having experienced New Zealand based national healthcare bureaucracy and US based private insurance bureaucracy (whilst living in the states for 5 years). I can say I like neither of them very much, but partially prefer the government version – at least you don’t get such an obvious feeling they are trying to actually make you well, rather than screw you of every last dime. (Perhaps because in the former case, the people that get really sick can never be pushed ‘out of coverage’ so there is less incentive?)

]]> By: Peter http://www.gothamresistance.com/2009/02/08/prognosis-negative%e2%80%a6/comment-page-1/#comment-6 Peter Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:20:30 +0000 http://www.gothamresistance.com/?p=253#comment-6 A socialised healthcare system doesn't mean private healthcare is non-existant. Here in the UK there is a thriving market for private healthcare (and insurance). If the mother you talked about was in the UK, I'm sure she could have had as many opinions as she could afford. However, even within the National Health Service, your general practitioner -- who serves as your doctor for non-urgent medical assistance and acts as a gateway to other, specialist doctors -- can be changed freely without having to give a reason. A socialised healthcare system doesn’t mean private healthcare is non-existant. Here in the UK there is a thriving market for private healthcare (and insurance). If the mother you talked about was in the UK, I’m sure she could have had as many opinions as she could afford.
However, even within the National Health Service, your general practitioner — who serves as your doctor for non-urgent medical assistance and acts as a gateway to other, specialist doctors — can be changed freely without having to give a reason.

]]>