[Vision2020] Health care

[Ralph Nielsen]

Dear Donovan,

I don't know where you get these ideas, but they are not grounded on  
reality. If you imagine that charity will pay for the poor, why are  
over 40 million Americans without health care insurance of any kind?  
And why are millions more bankrupted by doctor and hospital bills  
that their insurance companies refuse to pay? I think your band-aid  
example is absurd.

For some first-hand information on how universal medicare works in  
the Province of British Columbia, please read the first two articles  
on this web site. They are written by an American citizen who lives  
in BC and is familiar with both systems. And please note, Donovan,  
the Canadian system does not benefit the rich while hurting the poor,  
as you claim below. Please get your facts first.

<www.americanhealthcarereform.org/>

Ralph


Ralph,

   Universal Health Care, and Universal Health Coverage are two  
totally different things. Forcing people to buy health insurance  
doesn't cure anybody, it just makes doctors and insurance companies  
even wealthier than they are.

   I am 100% against forced health insurance purchasing, because it  
will not help the poor and will just be another tax benefiting the  
rich while hurting the poor.

   The problem is not how can we pay for a $60 band-aid, but rather,  
why we cannot reduce the cost of the band-aid to 60 cents, or even  
$6.00. If you bring down the cost of the band-aid, the middle class  
can afford health insurance and charity can afford to cover the poor.

   Best Regards,

   Donovan

   Ralph Nielsen <nielsen at uidaho.edu> wrote:
     I thought it was a very informative program in that it covered a
     variety of systems for universal coverage. Unfortunately, most
     Americans seem to have been indoctrinated with the idea the  
universal
     health insurance is "socialized medicine," and therefore to be
     avoided like poison A couple of months ago a repairman at my house
     used that term with an air of dislike. So I asked hem what he meant
     by that term. He replied that it means that all doctors will be
     working for the government.

     So I told him about my Canadian brother, who is a self-made
     millionaire, and lives in the Okanagan Valley, just north of the
     Washington border. About a year ago he had a hip replacement. He  
had
     to wait less than a month because he was willing to go to a younger
     doctor instead of an older, more popular one. Most Canadian doctors
     do not work for the government, they work for themselves. Only the
     insurance is paid by the government, like our Medicare, and ALL
     residents are covered, not just the rich, as down here. This is  
paid
     for by income taxes, which, of course, are based on ability to pay,
     and everybody is covered, regardless of income.

     Last month there was a provincial election in Alberta, where the
     Conservative Party has been in power for 37 years. In February they
     called for a provincial election on March 3. I listened on my
     internet radio to a 2-hour debate between the party leaders:
     Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic (like the British Labour
     Party), and a small new party called the Alberta Wild Rose Party,
     which sounded like dogmatic libertarians. There were frequent
     questions about problems with health care but no one, not even the
     libertarian, proposed that their "socialized" medicine be scrapped
     and Alberta return to the old American-style system they had  
before.
     In fact, it was the Conservatives who had set it up in the first  
place!

     Later, on March 3, the Conservatives were not only returned to  
power;
     they gained 11 new seats! Wouldn't it be nice if our conservatives
     learned something from the Province of Alberta?

     Ralph Nielsen