george conklin

Herman, this is generally NOT true. The fact that you think it so does not
make it so.

gretchen evans

On 20 Oct 2003 08:10:37 -0700, jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan

I have absolutely no problems at all in 'defining' "SP", or "UC", for
that matter. The problem obviously arises from your inability to
understand those definitions.. or accept them.

pixie

gretchen evans

On 20 Oct 2003 08:15:19 -0700, jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan


Excellent thinking, 'js'.. And while you're at it why not simply 'opt
out' of the human race also.

pixie

~rita

Excuse my intrusion. When it comes to heart disease, I have noticed that
many are caused by bacteria, as such was my husbands. In 1996 the strongest
antibiotic was known to be Gentamicin Sulfate USP, and it was used on a
6-week protocol, knowing that it would drug overdose with the recommended
treatment. Hubby only made it to the fifth week before the doctor's
mentioned "Drug Over-dosing". I thought that was rotten.

Thus I've noticed that an addition 7 years have passed that the strongest
antibiotic was known to be Gentamicin Sulfate. What are tax-payers money
spent on?

A century ago when the #1 disease killer was caused by bacteria, an evil
doctor cast a curse: "I'll see you and your sibling sick and dead before I
see you receive the 1908 BCG (tuberculosis) vaccine."

In 1982 and during Hubby first Cellulitis and neck tumor, we (Hubby and I)
met an Oakland County hematologist that extended the curse to include
antitumor/antiviral antibiotics. I think that this group should discuss the
bacterial-damage done to the human body and the withheld antibiotics that
gave so many people "Studying jobs".

jonathansmith99

Yes, you do Pixie.

When your definitions move in the wind, it's tough for me to keep up.

So, are UC and SP the same or differnt todfay? What's the difference?

js

bettinared

I suspect you're trying to get Pixie to pin down an ironclad
definition of SP and UC so you can say "gotcha!" about some fine
point in her definition. There is no ironclad definition of the
details, there is just the principle that health care should be
publicly financed (and privately delivered), and implementation will
be slowly developed and tweaked and tweaked again.
Bettina

karl

news:<fbcaefd.0310220049.77b2087e@posting.google.c om>...

news:<iebapvg7he09rov6j3guvf01dmssuhfe21@4ax.com>. ..


news:<6b7c8049.0310170838.4425205c@posting.google. com>...


JS this issue wouldn't have the political life to linger as long as it has.


In his eyes there is only one SP system the NHS. And that he is claiming is
being abolished in favor of a totally private system.

jonathansmith99

Not gotcha...she does that well enough herself. Her insistance that
it MUST be SP to work and the inability of any one of you to provide a
working example that it does suggests that a definition is in order.

Now you throw in a new term "public funding" What is that? Is this a
euphemism for progressive income tax based funding? If you agree that
employer/employee funding meets the condition of public, that is different.


This is contrary to what was offered up in the JAMA publication. Do
you suggest that public hospitals and clinics (county owned,
university owned, etc) be disbanded or privatized?

Sorry - you don't do SP half-assed. Either do it or don't, but don't
do it piecemeal and incrementally.

Unless of course you want to make it voluntary and allow folks to
opt-in?

When the term SINGLE PAYER is used, it is in reference to the
FINANCING of care - not the delivery. SINGLE PAYER, by definition, is
exactly what it says - ONE entity totally responsible for the funding
of health care services.

Tax-based government sponsored single payer is what I think Pixie
describes as her model of perfection. The assumptions is that the
resources to pay come from taxes, the central overnment takes on the
responsibility for program administration, and there are NO competing
mechanisms for financing or payment.

I find that to be inherently inefficient and unfair. No one does it
this way except maybe the UK and that is a dead horse - no additional
beating necessary.

A mandatory participation scheme based on employer contributions with
freedom of choice in what benefits and what program administrator
individual can elect would ensure the greatest efficiency and
accomplish what you want - 100% covered (no uninsured) without
compromising freedom. One size does NOT fit all in health care.

js

hrubin

This may be, but "would you call it living"? He had suddenly
collapsed from blockages to the coronary arteries.

After about 6 months of recovery, he seems to be doing things
quite normally. His retirement was because of age, not the
ability to perform the functions.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

hrubin

When the US was founded, the attitude was that if you did
not like what was done in one state, you could go to
another. There was even the general belief that if you did
not like what was going on in your country, you and those
who believed like you could leave and found your own.

This is what we need. The millions of libertarians are
perfectly willing to buy territory for a country, and to
pay full, or even inflated, value for it; the estimates of
the total number of Americans runs for 7 million up. What
is not needed is conformity; the conformist society cannot
compete with one which is not. This does not exclude the
idea of voluntary cooperation, and government to protect
people from the ravages of others.

As js says, those who believe in a SP system should be able
to set up their VOLUNTARY cooperative, with its rules and
fees for membership and for leaving. If the present laws
do not permit this, libertarians will join in changing them
so that you can do this. There is no reason why even a
nation has to be territorial; go do it. But do not expect
the rest of us to pay for you Utopian scheme.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558