------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 20 - WORLD GOA DAY
Celebrating the inclusion of Konkani in the 8th schedule of the
Indian Constitution on August 20, 1992
For a list of World Goa Day events see:
http://worldgoaday2009.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goanet:
Per M. Goveia's post:
" Ironically, Gilbert parrots a blogger called Rad21 in the Huffington Post as
was noticed by Santosh recently. I guess he hoped no one would notice."
It is my understanding that Gilbert Lawrence IS blogger Rad21 on Huff Post,
and not parroting (or plagiarizing, also known as brain rape) as M. Goveia
wrongly insinuates.
I. Nunes.
--- On Thu, 8/20/09, Mario Goveia <mgov...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
From: Mario Goveia <mgov...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [Goanet] Solving healthcare crisis
To: goanet@lists.goanet.org
Date: Thursday, August 20, 2009, 9:42 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bosco D'Mello wrote:
> If your posts are on the topic at hand without any smears and gratuitous
> comments, you will receive responses on the topic at hand. If you
> err........well then........as you sow so shall you reap!!!
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gilbert Lawrence <gilbert2...@yahoo.com>
Well said Bosco. Your comments reflect why some posts are not worth reading;
after the first talking point is encountered; totally unconnected to the issue
being discussed. And if one does not read the post, the desire to reply is
non-existent.
Mario responds:
Here we see the piggybacking of jejune personal insults I mentioned in another
post.
We also see Gilbert shamelessly admit that he only reads like minded
information. Instead of writing a specific counterpoint, he dismisses writing
he disagrees with as a "talking point", which is a list provided by some
organization. Ironically, Gilbert parrots a blogger called Rad21 in the
Huffington Post as was noticed by Santosh recently. I guess he hoped no one
would notice.
In addition to snide comments - BY HIM - that are "totally unconnected to the
issue being discussed", has anyone seen Gilbert's response to the question in
the following post or is this health care related issue unconnected to what he
has been bloviating about recently?
http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-August/181613.html
Instead, Gilbert is busy comisserating with his friend Bosco and joining in the
merry sniping at me with comments unconnected to issues being discussed.
Gilbert writes:
The fact that America in 2009 cannot get its act together in formulating a
sensible healthcare policy, reveals how far back we have fallen in the
civilized world.
Mario responds:
This is pure poppycock, twisted out of all recognition by misrepresenting the
fact that 5% of Americans who are economically "uninsurable" only have access
to free emergency health care, whereas most Americans have access to the best
health care technology in the world, WITH NO WAITING LISTS.
Apparently, wherever Gilbert lives, he has missed the fact that those from
around the world with the financial resources to do so come to the US for
treatment, when they want to live, not to Europe or Canada.
Even though he is a physician in the US, Gilbert seems blissfully ignorant of
the following facts:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
Gilbert wrote:
they bring their vested-interests, greed and weaknesses .... while leaving
their common-sense at the door.
If healthcare was cheap; instead of twice what it costs (per person) in other
countries, coverage for some situations and some people would be a non-issue.
Mario responds:
To begin with, in a classic example of demagoguery, Gilbert doesn't mention
which "other countries" he is talking about. I'm sure American health care is
more than twice as expensive as in Zimbabwe, but not western Europe.
Has anyone ever seen Gilbert complain that a Mercedes Benz is more expensive
than a Nano? Of course not. No demagogue value.
After decades in the US, Gilbert still hasn't grasped the American spirit,
which is to RAISE the most people UP to the highest level possible, not DRAG
the most people DOWN towards the least common denominator. When this hasn't
been achieved, we will always find that government bureaucrats, politicians or
regulations have been involved in trying to "help" people, the scary phenomenon
Ronald Reagan warned about.
The reason that American health care is so expensive is that it is the best
technologically, and it costs a lot of money to have enough equipment and
resources so that 300 million do not have to suffer in waiting lists. Then
Gilbert takes the total cost and divides it by some number to come up with a
meaningless "per person" cost.
For example, if Canada's health care was so reasonably priced, would we see the
President of the Canadian Academy of Medicine saying this, ""We all agree that
the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than
perhaps Canadians realize,"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw
If Britain's health care was so reasonably priced, would we see articles like
this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/330/7490/495-a?etoc=
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692973435303415.html
Gilbert wrote:
But we are left with a disconnect as in case of the "conservative Christians"
who are against insuring a small segment of illegal immigrants; but will
insists on providing them medical care in the most expensive setting - the
Emergency Room.
Mario observes:
To begin with, what about "illegal" does Gilbert fail to understand? Besides,
"illegal immigrants" is an oxymoron. These are "illegal aliens"
Second of all, we see Gilbert's trademark demagoguery again when he refers to
"conservative Christians", "who are against insuring a small segment of illegal
immigrants;".
Estimates of illegal aliens in the US range as high as 15 million. These are
all lawbreakers who defy US laws. None of them should be provided routine
health care benefits at the expense of US taxpayers. However, as a
humanitarian gesture, they are provided emergency treatment at any hospital in
the country, at no cost.
Gilbert wrote:
My solution has been for politicians (and their fellow-travelers) to get out of
the way. Get some healthcare experts to develop a plan.
Mario observes:
What is the incentive for any group of "health care experts" to come up with "a
plan" to benefit anyone but themselves? People like Gilbert still don't
understand that the best plan is when every individual in an industry is doing
what's in their own best interests. This includes the common sense notion that
others have to be served as well as possible for one's own long term financial
benefit.
Virtually all the medical and pharmaceutical breakthroughs in the world take
place in the US precisely because the government hasn't yet stifled their
incentives by imposing "national health care" controlled by politicians and a
small army of babus.
If you think I'm kidding, consider this. In miniscule Blighty, their NHS
employs 1.4 million people, mostly babus pushing paper. This makes them the
third largest employer IN THE WORLD. The only employers that are bigger are
the Chinese Red Army followed by Indian Railways. Imagine how many employees a
national US system would end up employing.
The only plan we need is to let the free market function without stifling
government regulations on the insurance companies that control the purse
strings in health care as outlined below.
These payers will automatically control costs at the physician and pharmacy
level, for their own benefit. That's how free markets work, not because
Gilbert and Obama come up with "a plan".
You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance in the USA by
ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across
state lines. They should all be allowed to compete nationally which will
quickly weed out the weak ones being protected by regulations.
The only reason most "pre-existing" conditions aren't already covered is
because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a
microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot
more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.
If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy
to buy insurance for "pre-existing" conditions before they exist, for example,
insurance on unborn -- unconceived -- children and health insurance even when
you don't have a job. The vast majority of "pre-existing" conditions that
currently exist in a heavily limited and regulated insurance market would be
"covered" conditions under a free market in health insurance.
Liberal politicians like Barack Obama claim that National health care will give
Americans "basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance
companies accountable". This is pure poppycock. The best way to protect
consumers is the same way we protect consumers of other consumer services: give
them the power to take their business elsewhere.
