phartz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:20 PM, b_s-wilk<b1sun...@yahoo.es> wrote:
Single-payer did NOT prevent you from getting the care you need. Managed
care did. Be informed and you can be better served.
When I hear all the railing against a single-payer system, with the
attendant calls for maintaining a system in the United States that is
singular in the developed world, I wonder why ours has to be different
from all the others? Why "uniquely American," which is the term I
keep hearing?
Because corporations that care nothing for the people are running the
government.
If our system of insurance is the best in terms of the care being
provided, why does the rest of the industrialized world pretty much
have a different system? We are talking here about democracies, where
citizens have the ability to change what does not work. If those
systems in other modern and developed nations are so horrible, why
have they been so widely adopted for so long? Why have they not been
thrown out considering the horror stories one hears from our insurance
companies?
Since it is recognized that there are big problems associated with
our current system, why the digging in of heels to keep it as it is?
Surely, when one applies a bit of logic to the equation, money is the
root cause of retaining the status quo.
Just as a note here: hopefully we're all aware that the Lewin Group is
the source of the only study that the Repubs point to in their
"argument," and that the Lewin Group is owned by health _insurance
_giant United Health Care.
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
